Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

MatthewToy wrote:Not the greatest. Their first 3 Super Bowls are tainted by Spygate. They were one baffling play call away from not winning their 4th. They have too many postseason losses to lesser teams that other great teams throughout history don't have. They're a very good team that took advantage of a mediocre, parity laden league.

I don't think that they were very good when they won their first three Super Bowls. Heck, I thought that they were a one-hit wonder after they beat the Rams. However, I agree with you about the Spygate incident, and I think that Brady's career has benefited from too many controversial mistakes by his opponents for him to be anywhere near GOAT level. He doesn't win any titles in the 70's and 80's playing in the AFC Central or NFC East.

I don't mean to denigrate Graham's or the Browns accomplishments in any way, but I think it is a lot more difficult to get to a Super Bowl in the modern era than it is to get to an NFL (or even an AFL or AAFC) Championship Game in the pre-1967 era. Back then, you simply had to win you division, except for the rare season when you tied for the division lead and had to play in a tiebreaker game (which I do consider a postseason game), and that happened according to my count a total of ten times before 1967. Back then, you had to get thru an 11 or 12-game schedule (14 if you were in the AAFC or AFL or early 60's NFL), and maybe play one tiebreaker game, and you were playing for the world championship. These days, you have to play a 16-game schedule and at least two and in some cases three playoff games before getting to the Super Bowl.

There is a part of me that has an issues weighing the accomplishments of Graham's ten straight championship appearances any differently than Brady and the Patriots winning the AFC East ten straight seasons, which they most likely will accomplish next season. While I feel Graham and the Browns were one of the greatest dynasties of all time, winning a league championship of 12 teams by winning one or two postseason games is more akin to winning a modern AFC or NFC title than a team winning a league of 32 teams by winning three of four postseason games. I tend to regard NFL, AFL and AAFC champions from the pre-Super Bowl era more on a level of a modern AFC or NFC Conference Champion than a modern Super Bowl Champion due to the size of conference and the amount of postseason games they play back then versus today. It's just not the same in my mind.

Definitely a complicated question. On the surface, I think most people’s immediate reaction is Yes, it’ more difficult to accomplish something when competing against 31 others than 11 others. Another way to look at it, though, is to imagine Usain Bolt in a race made up of the 32 fastest 100-meter sprinters in the world, rather than the usual 8 or 10 or whatever it is. Maybe a fair number of people would say his chances of winning, and especially winning again and again over a period of years are diminished and that would at least be statistically true … if one of those 31 others were faster than him. But that’s the point: none of them is. So no matter how much you expand the field, Bolt is the greatest and has been for many years. So it seems the issue is greatness, not quantity.

Also, since the NHL-ization of the NFL playoffs, one thing that has been dramatically diminished in importance is regular season greatness. Not that it doesn’t happen or that teams don’t strive for it but rather, that it’s not necessary the way it was 65 years ago. Today, the focus is on “winning the division” or “making the playoffs” where winning one’s division means beating out all of three other teams. It’s now mathematically possible for a team to finish 5-11 in the regular season and win the Super Bowl. Oh, and by the way, in case you’re not good enough to beat out that vast number of three other teams for first place, we have a backdoor for you: wildcards. Nowadays, teams and their fans often whine when they finish 10-6 and miss the cut, demanding that it isn’t fair and that we need more wildcard teams. Once upon a time, it was understood that you proved yourself the best in your conference over the course of the season or you went home even if you finished 12-2 like the 49ers in 1948 or 10-2 like the Bears in 1948 or 9-3 like the Bears in 1949 or 9-2-1 like the Giants in 1951 or 9-3 like the 49ers in 1953 or 11-3 like the Lions in 1962 or 11-2-1 like the Packers in 1963. A team that suffered a serious slump or a string of major injuries or whatever and lost three out of four in midseason, in a 12-game season especially, was basically done. Same thing if an opponent in one’s conference put together a lightning-in-a-bottle type of season, there was no second chance to be had by qualifying as a wildcard and getting another chance in the playoffs. With 16 games and 37.5% of teams making the playoffs, it’s totally different.

Also note that awarding home field based on regular season record, as mentioned in a recent thread, didn’t begin until 1975. So the Browns of the 1940s and 1950s played five Championship Games on the road in seasons when they had the best record in their league of which they lost three (they also benefited from this set-up once). Had the NFL Championship Game even just been played on a neutral field, as the Super Bowl is, it seems likely the Browns would have won more than seven championships in that era. So if you look at things from a different perspective, Cleveland’s dynasty might have been even greater in terms of championships won if they had been playing under today’s rules.

Regarding Graham’s individual greatness, the seven titles are a big part of it but not the only thing by a long stretch. He won five MVP awards and in three of the seasons he played, no MVP was awarded so it likely would have been more. If I remember right, that five ties him with Manning for the most ever. Graham was also a consensus 1st team all-pro nine times, more than any other QB ever. And had such an award existed, he likely would have been the MVP of his league’s Championship Game anywhere from four to seven times.

And while it’s fair to debate the merits of Cleveland and Graham’s accomplishments in the AAFC, what they did from 1950-55 goes a long way to validating 1946-49. Even setting aside the AAFC years, their six-year winning percentage from 50-55 is the greatest in NFL history.

Comparing across eras is challenging. But there's one thing that's a constant: all these other guys in the conversation had Hall of Fame receivers to throw to, and great (if not Hall of Fame) running games to take the pressure off of them. Brady won five Super Bowls with some pretty marginal talent surrounding him. He led the league in passing yards in 2005 with, like, Deion Branch as his top target. Throughout his career, he had Randy Moss for two seasons, and recently he's had Gronk. He had one season where he had a dominating running back - Corey Dillon in 2004 - but the rest were basically scrubs, year in and year out.

Another big factor is the system. Montana and Graham in particular were elevated to greatness in large part because their coaches were playing chess when everyone else was playing checkers. Manning is the complete opposite of that. He owes virtually nothing to his coaching. Brady is somewhere in the middle, probably closer to Manning than to the other guys.

Rupert Patrick wrote:I don't mean to denigrate Graham's or the Browns accomplishments in any way, but I think it is a lot more difficult to get to a Super Bowl in the modern era than it is to get to an NFL (or even an AFL or AAFC) Championship Game in the pre-1967 era. (rest cut for brevity) ...

I don't agree, at all. Andy said it better than I would so I'll second that and add ...

First, I think championships are championships. Then I would say - and not quite but nearly contradict the first statement, ha! - that in a listing of the worst champions in pro football history a vast majority would come from this century, for numerous reasons (many which are in Andy's post). Which sums up the quality of modern championships. You can also say it's easier now in a way since you don't have to be the best - and in some cases not even close to the best - team in the league to win a championship. A lot of times you don't even have to beat the best on your way to the championship. The weaker modern SB champs are still teams that won championships but if anything it's modern era that would be devalued as opposed to the era when teams actually had to be the best in their division/conference over the course of an entire regular season and were guaranteed to play and had to beat the best from the other division/conference. In the past era it was a pure competition league structure.

All that said, it wouldn't change anything for NE this year. Would say they're "true" champions. They would have still won under any league structure but the league overall is filled with mediocre and severely flawed teams/franchises. NE's legacy to me is being above that pile, not really into greatness but they're consistently "great" by the default of not being average or worse. I give NE much more and a lot of credit as a great franchise (as opposed to yearly individual teams), the ability to stay above and not fall into those depths. Which is why they can be penciled in to win their small little 4-team division every year as they're not a dysfunctional franchise like others in their division. And can be penciled in as the AFC favorite most if not all years since they're not a dysfunctional franchise like many others in their conference. And why they can be on the extremely shortlist of SB champion favorites year after year because they're not a dysfunctional franchise like many others in the (NFC included) NFL overall.

We also shouldn't make the playoffs out to be murderers row. NE had to beat a weak 9-7 Texans team in the divisional round! (A team that would have been nowhere near the playoffs in any pre-12 team playoff format.) So much for the quality of the divisional round these days.

Jeremy Crowhurst wrote:Comparing across eras is challenging. But there's one thing that's a constant: all these other guys in the conversation had Hall of Fame receivers to throw to, and great (if not Hall of Fame) running games to take the pressure off of them. Brady won five Super Bowls with some pretty marginal talent surrounding him. He led the league in passing yards in 2005 with, like, Deion Branch as his top target. Throughout his career, he had Randy Moss for two seasons, and recently he's had Gronk. He had one season where he had a dominating running back - Corey Dillon in 2004 - but the rest were basically scrubs, year in and year out.

Another big factor is the system. Montana and Graham in particular were elevated to greatness in large part because their coaches were playing chess when everyone else was playing checkers. Manning is the complete opposite of that. He owes virtually nothing to his coaching. Brady is somewhere in the middle, probably closer to Manning than to the other guys.

That's the thing about Brady/Belichick that has been most amazing - that they have been so successful with a constantly changing cast of characters and few if any of them will wind up in Canton. Ty Law made the final 15, which is a good sign he will probably get in one day. Vinatieri is a shoo in. Randy Moss is a shoo in but they only had him for three plus seasons. Gostkowski may break the career scoring record as long as he stays in NE and stays healthy and he is a possibility. A good argument can probably be made for Wes Welker for what he did in New England. Gronkowski is a stellar tight end but misses about a quarter of each season due to injury. I don't know how Belichick does it.

They are the most annoyingly great team of my lifetime.

I cannot wait until they finally go away.

Andy Piascik wrote:So if you look at things from a different perspective, Cleveland’s dynasty might have been even greater in terms of championships won if they had been playing under today’s rules.

How many championships would Cleveland have won if, in 1951, they had to let half of their starters go to free agency because they couldn't fit them under the salary cap? Or the Steelers in 1975, or the Packers in 1961? Those are the years when their QBs had been in the league for five years and would have been up for contract #2 under the current system.

It was easier for the great coaches and managers to build a great team back then. If you hit on a player, he was yours for a decade. Now? New England had 11 starters in the Super Bowl who weren't on the team in 2014. It's not enough to find a great player. You have to find him, then win in the next couple of years, because after that, you're losing either him or someone else. Teams have to make so many more decisions than they did pre-AFL, and there are so things that are out of their control that can derail a team's chances.

The Browns of that era were otherworldly. I think I said in an earlier post that Paul Brown was playing chess when the other coaches were playing checkers. But I'm not sure that it isn't the same with Belichick. It's just that it's not so obvious to people not in the room exactly what his chess game consists of. We know what Brown did - taxi squad, assistant coaches, substitutions, film study, discipline. I don't think we know what it is that Belichick is doing that has him find players, develop players, lose the players, and yet replace them with other players and still keep winning.

Rupert Patrick wrote:

Jeremy Crowhurst wrote:Comparing across eras is challenging. But there's one thing that's a constant: all these other guys in the conversation had Hall of Fame receivers to throw to, and great (if not Hall of Fame) running games to take the pressure off of them. Brady won five Super Bowls with some pretty marginal talent surrounding him. He led the league in passing yards in 2005 with, like, Deion Branch as his top target. Throughout his career, he had Randy Moss for two seasons, and recently he's had Gronk. He had one season where he had a dominating running back - Corey Dillon in 2004 - but the rest were basically scrubs, year in and year out.

Another big factor is the system. Montana and Graham in particular were elevated to greatness in large part because their coaches were playing chess when everyone else was playing checkers. Manning is the complete opposite of that. He owes virtually nothing to his coaching. Brady is somewhere in the middle, probably closer to Manning than to the other guys.

That's the thing about Brady/Belichick that has been most amazing - that they have been so successful with a constantly changing cast of characters and few if any of them will wind up in Canton. Ty Law made the final 15, which is a good sign he will probably get in one day. Vinatieri is a shoo in. Randy Moss is a shoo in but they only had him for three plus seasons. Gostkowski may break the career scoring record as long as he stays in NE and stays healthy and he is a possibility. A good argument can probably be made for Wes Welker for what he did in New England. Gronkowski is a stellar tight end but misses about a quarter of each season due to injury. I don't know how Belichick does it.

If one takes into account all the Pats teams from 2001-2016, you've got the following:

Definite HoFers: Belichick, Brady, Seau, Revis, Moss
Very likely HoFers: Law, Seymour, Vinatieri, Kraft
Possible HoFers to varying degrees: Mankins, Wilfork, Gronkowski, Welker.

Not to take away from your argument, but that's actually a fair number of folks even without the three rent-a-stars.

Jeremy Crowhurst wrote:How many championships would Cleveland have won if, in 1951, they had to let half of their starters go to free agency because they couldn't fit them under the salary cap? Or the Steelers in 1975, or the Packers in 1961? ...

It was easier for the great coaches and managers to build a great team back then.

It's not easier, it's just different.

Ugh, the "salary cap era" nonsense. People act as if FA is a one-way street, you win a championship and instantly all your best players leave (like how after the Patriots won in 2014 they instantly lost Tom Brady, Julian Edelman, Dont'a Hightower & Devin McCourty ...)

1. "Fit under the salary cap", you can see that -good- teams don't let players go that they don't want/aren't comfortable with letting go. The salary cap isn't the player-stealing mechanism that people make it out to be. The Seahawks won the SB in 2013 and yet in 2016 they still had Wilson, Baldwin, Bennett, Avril, Wagner, Wright, Sherman, Chancellor, Thomas, etc. Hmm, but the salary cap and FA?

2. Back to FA and how you only lose players. No. You release LaFell (not even lost in FA, just got rid of him/released), you sign Hogan. And so on. Lot of interchangeable parts and lot of opportunities to upgrade.

Don't want to look up everything so going off the top of my head (while looking up play-counts in the SB) here's the NE players who played 15+ plays yesterday, who the Patriots acquired/signed as FA's who had previously been with another team (so no post-draft FA's and none of the players they traded for).

Players they signed that were on other teams previously: LeGarrette Blount, Dion Lewis, Danny Amendola, Chris Hogan, James Develin, Matt Lengal, Alan Branch, Jabaal Sheard, Chris Long, Rob Nikovich, Shea McClellen & Patrick Chung.
(Note: Could be missing some if I'm not remembering them being on another team previously. Also list includes players that were signed outside of the usual FA period - e.g. players that were cut by their teams.)

Lot of contributors there including some major parts of their team.

Could the 1951 Browns, 1961 Packers or 1974 Steelers have gone out and signed players like? Or in 2014 signed a player like NE did when they signed Revis (and fit him under that ever so-constricting salary cap?!)?

The Patriots "name" players they 'lost' from the last SB were Brandon Browner, Revis and Wilfork. And that shows the genius of the Pats roster moves. Belichick is great at getting rid of guys they no longer need and that are done. Browner was done. Revis is almost done and bad this year. Wilfork is likely retiring. They weren't needed to get to the AFC Champ last year and obviously weren't needed to win this year.

Every team in the NFL has large roster turnover because a lot of positions have become interchangeable parts (which is another discussion entirely on quality of play). The Patriots are definitely better at it that anyone else but to act like they have it harder than a previous era, no. At best it's different, at worst they have a lot more avenues to acquire talent (which players want to win so imagine the FA's that would have wanted to goto Pittsburgh in the 70's) which is essentially a wash in the year-to-year but also could be argued allows them to stay at the top. Actually a benefit, since when they lose players they aren't just gone & now you have to hope to find a replacement in the draft, nowadays you can just sign someone to fill that spot.

So that argument goes both ways. I've always said it's basically even, just different. Though I can't stand "NE is great because they're doing it in the salary cap era!" because that's meaningless and lacks context. NE is great because they're consistent winners and win championships, that stands on it's own and every other team currently in the NFL is playing by the same rules they are but NE is doing it better. Just like every team in the NFL was playing by the same rules the Packers were in the 60's, the Packers just did it better.