Where would you place the Pats dynasty all time

lastcat3
Posts: 515
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2015 11:47 pm

Where would you place the Pats dynasty all time

Post by lastcat3 »

This is an interesting topic to talk about because it can raise a lot of discussion. The Patriots havn't by any means had some of the greatest teams of all time during their current run, however they have maintained a level of excellence during an era when teams are no longer supposed to stay at or near the top for close to twenty years.

They have more Super Bowl victories under one quarterback than any other during the Super Bowl era.

There have been a couple other teams that have maintained a high level of excellence over a similar amount of time (the Cowboys from the late '60's to early '80's and the 49ers from the early '80's to mid '90's). Neither of these two teams got to as many Super Bowls though and the Pats have won just as many championships as the '9ers did. The most important difference was that '9ers and Cowboys had their dynasties during a time when it was much easier to keep teams together.

So where do you think the Pats belong amongst the all time great list of nfl dynasties?
User avatar
Rupert Patrick
Posts: 1746
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 7:53 pm
Location: Upstate SC

Re: Where would you place the Pats dynasty all time

Post by Rupert Patrick »

Interesting question, there are several ways to measure a dynasty, one is by position by position comparisons, or postseason play, or how they perform against high-calibre teams.

On position by position comparisons, this one is difficult because if you compare Green Bay to Pittsburgh to San Fran to New England at QB, you have Starr vs Bradshaw vs Montana vs Brady, which is an interesting discussion in itself. If you look at RB, you have Hornung/Taylor vs Harris/Bleier vs Craig/Tlyer vs. ?, because the Patriots have had according to Pro football reference dot com nine different running backs lead the team in rushing since 2001, and eight different receivers lead the team in receiving since 2001. Other than Brady, there have been no anchors to this team other than I guess Gostkowski. The Pats have had a noticeable lack of future HOFers over the years, Brady and Vinatieri, and probably someday Ty Law, and a couple who were chasing rings like Randy Moss.

You also have to look at the time frame of 17 years for the Pats vs 9 for the Packers and 12 for the Steelers (72-84) and San Francisco at 81-90 if you separate the Young years as a separate entity. One way to make an even time frame is to look at, say, the best consecutive 10-year run for each team, which would force you to take a good long look at New England and try to isolate their best 10-year stretch of the Brady era and compare it to the others.
"Every time you lose, you die a little bit. You die inside. Not all your organs, maybe just your liver." - George Allen
User avatar
Bryan
Posts: 2791
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2014 8:37 am

Re: Where would you place the Pats dynasty all time

Post by Bryan »

First
JohnH19
Posts: 934
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 6:18 pm

Re: Where would you place the Pats dynasty all time

Post by JohnH19 »

No. 1 without a doubt. The Lombardi Packers are No. 2. Paul Brown's Browns are No. 3.
L.C. Greenwood
Posts: 233
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2016 8:53 am

Re: Where would you place the Pats dynasty all time

Post by L.C. Greenwood »

Rupert Patrick wrote:Interesting question, there are several ways to measure a dynasty, one is by position by position comparisons, or postseason play, or how they perform against high-calibre teams.

On position by position comparisons, this one is difficult because if you compare Green Bay to Pittsburgh to San Fran to New England at QB, you have Starr vs Bradshaw vs Montana vs Brady, which is an interesting discussion in itself. If you look at RB, you have Hornung/Taylor vs Harris/Bleier vs Craig/Tlyer vs. ?, because the Patriots have had according to Pro football reference dot com nine different running backs lead the team in rushing since 2001, and eight different receivers lead the team in receiving since 2001. Other than Brady, there have been no anchors to this team other than I guess Gostkowski. The Pats have had a noticeable lack of future HOFers over the years, Brady and Vinatieri, and probably someday Ty Law, and a couple who were chasing rings like Randy Moss.

You also have to look at the time frame of 17 years for the Pats vs 9 for the Packers and 12 for the Steelers (72-84) and San Francisco at 81-90 if you separate the Young years as a separate entity. One way to make an even time frame is to look at, say, the best consecutive 10-year run for each team, which would force you to take a good long look at New England and try to isolate their best 10-year stretch of the Brady era and compare it to the others.

New England's formula has been unique, because I don't see where the next HOF locks at QB are coming from once this current group rides into the sunset. Free agency has meant the Patriots cannot compete with those older great teams on a position by position basis. I also think the Patriots had the great timing of playing in the AFC East, which has produced only ten other playoff teams since 2001, despite this era of expanded playoffs. In Super Bowl play, you can say they won one as an underdog, but were surprise losers in three others. If we are drilling down on New England's best stretch, that would be 2001-04, and 2014-17.
JohnH19
Posts: 934
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 6:18 pm

Re: Where would you place the Pats dynasty all time

Post by JohnH19 »

New England's dynasty stretches from 2001 to 2017 without a single down year. Missing the playoffs with an 11-5 record isn't a down year. Other teams have had dominant stretches of similar lengths (Browns, Cowboys and Raiders) but without as many championship game wins and/or appearances. To do what the Pats have done for the last 17 years in a league that strives for parity is truly amazing.
User avatar
Rupert Patrick
Posts: 1746
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 7:53 pm
Location: Upstate SC

Re: Where would you place the Pats dynasty all time

Post by Rupert Patrick »

JohnH19 wrote:New England's dynasty stretches from 2001 to 2017 without a single down year. Missing the playoffs with an 11-5 record isn't a down year. Other teams have had dominant stretches of similar lengths (Browns, Cowboys and Raiders) but without as many championship game wins and/or appearances. To do what the Pats have done for the last 17 years in a league that strives for parity is truly amazing.
I've been trying to come up with a precedent for the Patriots, a team that is hugely successful year after year after year with a constantly changing set of players for the most part, and the closest parallel that comes to mind (and I am crossing sports to do so) is the John Wooden UCLA teams, where he was winning every year whilst having to continuously turn over his roster every three or four years. Of course, Wooden had the advantage of being able to recruit the creme of the high school crop. Of course the Patriots aren't winning the Championship every year like UCLA was in the 60's and early 70's, but I've never seen a coach who plugs the gaps better than Belichick, that if there is a weakness with his team you never know it because he has the problem fixed before it becomes a problem.
"Every time you lose, you die a little bit. You die inside. Not all your organs, maybe just your liver." - George Allen
User avatar
74_75_78_79_
Posts: 2631
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:25 pm

Re: Where would you place the Pats dynasty all time

Post by 74_75_78_79_ »

As far as judging a dynasty strictly by longevity, these current ’01-thru-’17 Pats aren’t all by themselves. ’81-thru-’98 Forty Niners are very comparable. Each produced 5 SB wins. NE’s only non-playoff years in that stretch are ’02 & ’08; SF - ’82 & ’91; the latter in each case arguably two of the best teams to not make the post-season. Not a ton of HOFers for SF either but, yes, more so than NE. Of course Pats had to win those two other Lombardis since ’04 for us to have this thread in the first place, thus covering that ‘doughnut hole’ from ’05-thru-’13 with plenty of glaze and sprinkles. Still quite a winning non-title stretch! Even more so than the ’80s Yankees who actually were the most winningest team that decade despite not a single WS win.

How about the Browns from ’46 all the way through ’73, at least staking themselves another title in ’64? Just two non-winning years (’56 & ’70) in that bunch but EIGHT championships including AAFC!

’60s Packers and ’70 Steelers are easily more comparable to one another due to their similar lengths of greatestness, ’60-thru-’67 and ’72-thru-’79 respectively. To me, the two-year interruption of ’80 and ’81 makes me stop the Steeler Dynasty at ’79 although I’ll hardly argue against tacking on ’82-thru-’84.

Late-’60s-thru-mid-’80s Cowboys and Raiders runs can be comparable to each other as well. Both - so far - longer than NE but, of course, lacking SB wins with Raiders getting 3-to-2 edge over Dallas.
L.C. Greenwood
Posts: 233
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2016 8:53 am

Re: Where would you place the Pats dynasty all time

Post by L.C. Greenwood »

Rupert Patrick wrote:
JohnH19 wrote:New England's dynasty stretches from 2001 to 2017 without a single down year. Missing the playoffs with an 11-5 record isn't a down year. Other teams have had dominant stretches of similar lengths (Browns, Cowboys and Raiders) but without as many championship game wins and/or appearances. To do what the Pats have done for the last 17 years in a league that strives for parity is truly amazing.
I've been trying to come up with a precedent for the Patriots, a team that is hugely successful year after year after year with a constantly changing set of players for the most part, and the closest parallel that comes to mind (and I am crossing sports to do so) is the John Wooden UCLA teams, where he was winning every year whilst having to continuously turn over his roster every three or four years. Of course, Wooden had the advantage of being able to recruit the creme of the high school crop. Of course the Patriots aren't winning the Championship every year like UCLA was in the 60's and early 70's, but I've never seen a coach who plugs the gaps better than Belichick, that if there is a weakness with his team you never know it because he has the problem fixed before it becomes a problem.

Belichick is one of the top coaches in NFL history, and deserves full credit for succeeding in this free agency era. I'm not prepared to call him the best, because I think the other elite coaches would have found a way to win had free agency been around decades earlier. I also think those older teams had more difficult competition, both inside, and outside their divisions. With Tom Brady so much responsible for the success, it will be fascinating to see what the Patriots will do when he declines. The AFC East should continue to be weak for the foreseeable future, so that will be very helpful.
conace21
Posts: 989
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 10:08 am

Re: Where would you place the Pats dynasty all time

Post by conace21 »

The Patriots are certainly unique. I guess the biggest argument against them being No. 1 is they were rarely dominant (outside of 2007.) They always played just well enough to win. After the first few years, it was easy to dismiss their success as fluksh. After 17 years, it's generally accepted that it's no fluke. It's just amazing how many of their big games have come down to a handful of plays that really could have gone either way. And that's worked against them as well. The Patriots could easily be 8-0 in the Super Bowl if not for catches by Tyree, Manningham, and Ertz (and Clement.) Then again, with the Tuck Rule, the non-Marshawn Lynch run from the one, and questionable playcalling from Kyle Shannahan, they could easily be 2-5.

I went back and looked at the last drive vs the Rams. It was a microcosm of the dynasty. There was a play that was inches from turning the tide (Leonard Little very nearly knocked the ball out if Brady's hand on the first play.) Unsung players stepping up (JR Redmond should have been tackled for an 8 yard gain on 2nd and 10. That would have led to a rushed 3rd and 2 play. Instead, he makes 2 Rams miss and fights to get 11 yards and OOB.) There was a questionable call (It should have been intentional grounding when Brady was still barely in the tackle box and threw the ball out of bounds.) But there was a coolness under pressure... Brady did everything right. No wasted time when rushing up to clock the ball. He got the ball out in time to avoid costly sacks I don't think any QB this century outside of Brees, Peyton and Rodgers could have led a drive like that... and he did it in his second year. 58 yards in 90 seconds.... and no timeouts
Post Reply