Pats Dynasty Redux

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Caesar1177. Show Caesar1177's posts

    Pats Dynasty Redux

    Anyone that has followed NFL history can see a certain trend with the dynastic teams. The Packers dominated the early 60's, hit a relative drought in 1963, 64 and then came back to top off their dynasty with three straight titles. The 70's saw the same thing happen with the Steelers, taking two years off between bookend repeat titles. The 49ers won titles in 1981 and 1984, then were off for 1985, 1986 and 1987 before winning back-to-back. The Cowboy never really came back for the second round. So why did the Pack, Steelers and 49ers do it and the Cowboys not?

    Simple. Continuity of coaching. The Cowboys switched coaches in the midst of their Super Bowl dominance. Switzer won a title on the fumes of the Johnson years, but he was not good enough to keep making the brilliant personnel decision to get that second wind.

    Now, the Pats had that first run with 2001, 2003 and 2004. They have had four seasons of no titles, but the 2007 season is certainly worth something in the history annals. Anyway, the fact that they still have their head coach, a relatively young QB, a core of lineman on D and O, and have reloaded through the draft and FA bodes well for the next three years.

    In sum, look for two out of the next three Super Bowls to cap the dynasty.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from KyleCleric2. Show KyleCleric2's posts

    Re: Pats Dynasty Redux

    Great first post!
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Pats Dynasty Redux

    Yep. That in no way guarantees anything. But dynasty building has always been about getting a young HOF core of players, for NE this was really Brady and Seymour, with some other guys, and then reloading down the line.

    I would add that it wasn't just coaching that felled the Cowpokes, but managerial makeup. They, like the 49ers, were built as pre-salary cap dynasties.

    The cap era really reduced the both of them to what they have been the last 15 years, teams that bounce between first round exits and missing the playoffs entirely.

    I know a lot of people get upset about some older players getting the axe, but the Pats have gotten much, much younger the last two seasons. Look for this to pay dividends down the stretch and late in games as these kids startto accrue veteran experience. Meriweather in year three and Mayo in year two alone will be huge.


     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from KyleCleric2. Show KyleCleric2's posts

    Re: Pats Dynasty Redux

    The Pats will get even younger after this next season with four picks currently scheduled in the first two rounds, and 9 picks overall with perhaps 3 more compensatory picks to be added later.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Caesar1177. Show Caesar1177's posts

    Re: Pats Dynasty Redux

    Good point on the salary cap issues with the 49ers and Cowboys. Another point to consider as favorable for 2009 is the whole influx of quality rookies and second year players, and the ability to work them in slowly to avoid the rookie wall. In 2003, the Pats had Ty Warren, Eugene Wilson (pre-sucking), Asante, Koppen as rookies and Branch, Graham, Givens, and Green as second year guys. Those young guys started to really develop in the second part of 2003 and gave the Pats momentum at the end of the season. The 2007 Giants are another case in point. Guys like Aaron Ross, Kevin Boss, Ahmad Bradshaw, Jay Alford, Steve Smith really were able to step in over the course of that season and gave them a boost as the grind of a season comes to an end.

    Pats of 2009 have guys like Mayo, Guyton, BJGE, Redd, Crable from last year, and a ton of rookies from this year. To me, it just seems like things might be falling into place for a mediocre start and strong finish and SB for 2009.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from MVPkilla. Show MVPkilla's posts

    Re: Pats Dynasty Redux

    Only tools like Jbolt crown their team the champs this early. I will agree that we have a very good shot at winning another superbowl but I wont crown us yet. I hope we win it all but I dont think we are a lock by any means.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Caesar1177. Show Caesar1177's posts

    Re: Pats Dynasty Redux

    [QUOTE]Only tools like Jbolt crown their team the champs this early. I will agree that we have a very good shot at winning another superbowl but I wont crown us yet. I hope we win it all but I dont think we are a lock by any means.
    Posted by MVPkilla[/QUOTE]

    Thus the word "might" in my last post.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from MVPkilla. Show MVPkilla's posts

    Re: Pats Dynasty Redux

    I was not calling you out or anything i was just making sure i was clear that I was not crowning them yet thats it.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Trox1. Show Trox1's posts

    Re: Pats Dynasty Redux

    [QUOTE]I was not calling you out or anything i was just making sure i was clear that I was not crowning them yet thats it.
    Posted by MVPkilla[/QUOTE]

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from garytx. Show garytx's posts

    Re: Pats Dynasty Redux

    [QUOTE]Yep. That in no way guarantees anything. But dynasty building has always been about getting a young HOF core of players, for NE this was really Brady and Seymour, with some other guys, and then reloading down the line. I would add that it wasn't just coaching that felled the Cowpokes, but managerial makeup. They, like the 49ers, were built as pre-salary cap dynasties. The cap era really reduced the both of them to what they have been the last 15 years, teams that bounce between first round exits and missing the playoffs entirely. I know a lot of people get upset about some older players getting the axe, but the Pats have gotten much, much younger the last two seasons. Look for this to pay dividends down the stretch and late in games as these kids startto accrue veteran experience. Meriweather in year three and Mayo in year two alone will be huge.
    Posted by zbellino[/QUOTE]

    After reading the original post I was going to respond in the like.  Luckily I read a couple of posts before sounding redundant.  I'm a 100% behind what you say.  The introduction of the cap change everything.  It was said that there would never be a back to back Super Bowl champ because of the cap.  Few teams, and I mean very few, have figured this out.  One being the Pats and the other being the Steelers.  I guess you can throw in the Colts and Chargers too.  On the NFC side of things I don't think any of them have figured it out quite yet.  The Eagles may be in the neighborhood but they haven't won anything.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from MVPkilla. Show MVPkilla's posts

    Re: Pats Dynasty Redux

    The Eagles have played in 5 NFC championship games so that to me would suggest that they  know how to work the cap.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Kmaxx. Show Kmaxx's posts

    Re: Pats Dynasty Redux

    Personally I'm not one to use the word Dynasty when it come to describing winning sports teams.  If your saying we have a great team with great leaders that should enjoy many years of success, then I couldn't agree more.

    A dynasty is a succession of rulers who belong to the same family for generations
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Pats Dynasty Redux

    Yeah, and few teams had it figured out then too.

    The change in the guard really. The Eddie DiBartelo's, Al Davis', etc, that built winning teams then became like dinosaurs and failed to adapt.

    Most of the franchises that are winning consistently now, have new managment blood at the helm. And most have a different approach to the pre-cap era.

    I would definitely count the Eagles as a team that knows what it needs to do. Letting Dawkins go to Denver was a smart move . . and a case in point. Sitting trouble makers, drafting players before you actually need them.

    While they have yet to put it all together, they have an idea, which is more than 2/3 of the NFL.

    I would Count the Ravens in this mix of teams that aren't so obvious too. They make great moves most of the time.

    Then there are teams like Dallas who can't buy a championship, and teams like the Rams who single handedly illustrated how *not* to work your team.

    I imagine that the gift-wrap of a QB like Warner to the Rams twenty years ago, might have netted more than one SB victory.

    Unless you pro-actively manage the cap, and this usually includes making tough decisions about fan favorites or ratings grabbers, you will at best build a team with a "window" of opportunity.

    That is really what the Rams did. Now they are purging overpaid guys, and their core has really decayed.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from JulesWinfield. Show JulesWinfield's posts

    Re: Pats Dynasty Redux

    MVPKilla is right - waaaayyyy premature on this.  If the last four years should have proven anything to Patriot fans, it's that SB victories are hard to come by.  I'm certain that you've all felt your team was the best in the league each of the last four years.  And yet, no SB rings.  I'd say that odds are against the Pats winning a single SB in the next three years.  But you're not alone - that's true for every team in the league!

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Caesar1177. Show Caesar1177's posts

    Re: Pats Dynasty Redux

    [QUOTE]I was not calling you out or anything i was just making sure i was clear that I was not crowning them yet thats it.
    Posted by MVPkilla[/QUOTE]


    Didn't think you were. Just clarifying my statement.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Caesar1177. Show Caesar1177's posts

    Re: Pats Dynasty Redux

    [QUOTE]MVPKilla is right - waaaayyyy premature on this.  If the last four years should have proven anything to Patriot fans, it's that SB victories are hard to come by.  I'm certain that you've all felt your team was the best in the league each of the last four years.  And yet, no SB rings.  I'd say that odds are against the Pats winning a single SB in the next three years.  But you're not alone - that's true for every team in the league!
    Posted by JulesWinfield[/QUOTE]


    Not really. Just making a prediction based on historical data. Like saying the US would get bogged down in Afghanistan based on British and Russian experiences there. It may have seemed premature back in 01, but history tends to repeat itself. In my opinion, certain players on the Pats are proven champ, including their coach. History shows that when you keep that core together, eventually there will come a reload period which will sustain a second run. Yes, salary cap issues may change the equation, but the last two drafts/rookie FA classes look like they could be that reload the puts the Pats in Act II of their dynasty.

    But of course, there are also no certainties.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from JulesWinfield. Show JulesWinfield's posts

    Re: Pats Dynasty Redux

    [QUOTE]Not really. Just making a prediction based on historical data. Like saying the US would get bogged down in Afghanistan based on British and Russian experiences there. It may have seemed premature back in 01, but history tends to repeat itself. In my opinion, certain players on the Pats are proven champ, including their coach. History shows that when you keep that core together, eventually there will come a reload period which will sustain a second run. Yes, salary cap issues may change the equation, but the last two drafts/rookie FA classes look like they could be that reload the puts the Pats in Act II of their dynasty. But of course, there are also no certainties.
    Posted by Caesar1177[/QUOTE]

    Points well taken, Caesar.  A draft with four 2nd round draft picks appears to be an opportunity to reload.  I guess the jury is still out on last year's draft, and the only near-certainty being that a cog was added with Mayo.  The real question for that draft is whether future starting CBs were added.  Wilhite looked better than Wheatley, but no one expects rookie CBs to contribute in BB's D.  This year's draft seemed to me to be a missed opportunity.  There seemed to be good opportunities to add early LBs who fit the system and OL to become the next generation of Pat linemen.  But drafts shouldn't be judged for three years or so.  There's always the off-chance that BB knows more about the players and team needs than I do!
     

Share