Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 61 to 66 of 66
  1. #61

    Re: Ranking the dynasties

    Quote Originally Posted by JimZipCode View Post
    so determined to wilfully misconstrue what the guy is doing.
    I will agree to that if you admit he is misappropriating the word dynasty. He's flaunting his butchering of the word in the title of his piece, "Dynasty Rankings: Defining a Dynasty"

    If we are going to insist on saying his point system identifies, defines and ranks dynasties, from large to small, then no I am not misconstruing his point, I am flat out rejecting it.

    He can talk all he wants about dynasties not being a binary thing, and how his system is agnostic about duration--I am not misconstruing his thinking, I am flat out rejecting it. Do you see the difference?

    It is a binary thing. We should and do argue whether teams from certain eras can be called dynasties. There is absolutely a cut off. Where the line is drawn is absolutely arguable. But saying there is no line--just a sliding scale--is just just plain wrong, I believe. I haven't changed that point since entering this thread.

    If he wanted to create a higher cut off and rank the ten dynasties--followed by list of "honorable mentions" maybe I'd be okay with that, although I don't think a I could put a team with a two year run in the honorable mention category because they don't belong in the category by definition, for me. I believe you have to do it over a certain number of years. I am not agnostic on that point.

    It reminds me of HOF voting. That is also binary. You are in, or you are under consideration, or you are not under consideration. For a lot of voters it requires sustained excellence over a long number of seasons even to be under consideration. Short duration sustained excellence doesn't put you in the conversation for HOF or for Dynasty, in my mind.

    It also reminds me of--god forgive me for mentioning it again--"is Joe Flacco elite"?

    That was a binary question that produced heated debate. It stopped being controversial after he clearly fell well below the line. If someone were to come out with a new point system that ranks Joe 40th among "Elite Quarterbacks of the 21st Century Rankings. Defining Elite Quarterbacks" I would react similarly and suggest that person needs to apply a different title to their system.

    That's my opinion. I understand his, and just disagree with it--unless he wants to stop appropriating the word dynasty. If that makes me a semantic prick, so be it.
    Last edited by Shas; 05-24-2020 at 11:58 AM.





  2. #62
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Balt-Wash corridor
    Posts
    24,538

    Re: Ranking the dynasties

    No. 15: 1964-1971 Baltimore Colts

    Peak Dynasty Points: 19
    Average DVOA: 18.6%.
    Top-Five DVOA: 27.5%
    Championships: 1.
    Record: 84-23-5 (.772)
    Head Coaches: Don McCafferty, Don Shula
    Key Players: QB Johnny Unitas, RB Tom Matte, TE John Mackey, T Bob Vogel, DE Bubba Smith, DT Fred Miller, LB Mike Curtis, CB Bobby Boyd, S Jerry Logan, S Rick Volk
    Z-Score: 1.56

    Indianapolis can steal the Colts from Baltimore, but they have not yet stolen the title of best Colts team from the Charm City. On the single-season level, that title still belongs to Baltimore's 1968 team, with their 40.9% estimated DVOA beating out 2005 Indianapolis' 32.1%. And even though Peyton Manning's Colts ended up with more dynasty points, the overall quality of Johnny Unitas' Colts ultimately lets them squeak just past the best of the Hoosiers.

    Way back down at No. 43, we covered the origins of this team, and the back-to-back championships in 1958 and 1959. But the years between those championships and this run were middling; they never won more than eight games and coach Weeb Ewbank bickered with ownership about strategy. In 1963, he was fired and replaced by the 33-year-old Don Shula, the youngest coach in NFL history at the time. Within a year, the Colts were back in the title game, Shula was Coach of the Year, and the briefly-paused era of dominant Baltimore Colts teams began again.

    It's a bit odd that 1968 was the year the Colts produced their best team -- the 12th-best team since 1950 per estimated DVOA. Unitas won two MVPs during the course of this Colts run, but he missed essentially all of the season with an elbow injury; it was his backup, Earl Morrall, who came in and had an MVP season of his own. The Colts of this era featured future Hall of Famers Raymond Berry, Gino Marchetti, Lenny Moore, and Jim Parker -- each of whom last played for the Colts in 1966 or 1967. Hall of Famer Ted Hendricks wouldn't arrive until the following year. With John Mackey as the only future inductee active, you would have thought 1968 would have been a down year for Baltimore.

    But no. After years of near-misses -- a loss to the Browns in the 1964 title game, a playoff loss to the Packers in 1965 based on an incorrectly called field goal, missing the playoffs in 1967 despite going a league-best 11-1-2 because of terrible tiebreaker rules -- the 1968 Colts were going to bring a title to Baltimore for the first time in nearly a decade. They went 13-1 and cruised through the playoffs, and all they had to do was win the Super Bowl. Super Bowl III. Against their old coach Ewbank, some hotshot celebrity quarterback named Joe Namath, and the New York Jets. As 18-point favorites, what could possibly go wrong?

    Play Super Bowl III 10 times, and the Colts win six or seven of 'em. But you only get one shot, so the Colts are remembered for losing the biggest upset in NFL history, and not for their many actual achievements on the field.

    They would finally get their Super Bowl win two years later, beating the Cowboys in Super Bowl V. That game is remembered for being the sloppiest and ugliest Super Bowl in history, and for featuring the worst Super Bowl-winner ever, per estimated DVOA -- the Colts actually clocked in at -3.3% for that one, making them the only champion in league history to be below average by our stats. But hey, the 1970 Colts have a ring and the 1968 Colts don't, so they'll take it.

    If you connect the Ewbank Colts to the Shula and McCafferty Colts, the resulting Unitas Dynasty would rank ninth all-time. The 21-19 record from 1960 to 1962 is enough to split the two teams in my book, but your mileage may vary, especially if you happen to be from Baltimore.





  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Balt-Wash corridor
    Posts
    24,538

    Re: Ranking the dynasties

    Quote Originally Posted by Shas View Post
    I will agree to that if you admit he is misappropriating the word dynasty. He's flaunting his butchering of the word in the title of his piece, "Dynasty Rankings: Defining a Dynasty"
    Well: would've helped if he'd come up with a workable tag for teams on the list below "dynasty" levels. Might've avoided some confusion.

    I don't necessarily blame him for the headlines / titles. That could be an editor.





  4. #64
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    5,069
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Ranking the dynasties

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkS View Post
    "We're number 2!!! We're number 2!!!" Doesn't quite roll off the tongue, does it?
    Literally at no point during that run were they ever the best team in the NFL. That's definitely not a dynasty in my book, but it's semantics, so I guess we'll agree to disagree.
    IIIRC, they beat every team that beat them in the Super Bowl the next year.

    They were the best team in the NFL. They just choked repeatedly at a really, really bad time.

    Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk





  5. #65
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    5,069
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Ranking the dynasties

    Quote Originally Posted by JimZipCode View Post
    The article discusses that, in the three or four paragraphs after the big table. The part about a big-tent vs small-tent way of looking at it. The writer suggests one cutoff for "dynasty points, where about the top 15 (or 17?) really are "dynasties".

    It's almost the wrong word. They're not saying that all 56 team-groups on the list were dynasties. They're proposing a method to rank all the various "runs of achievement" by teams. This lets you get everybody on a list, including the Mike Holmgren Seahawks and the Marty Schottenheimer Chargers. Then with all these "runs of achievement" ranked, you decide where the "dynasty" cutoff is.
    That makes more sense than dynasty.

    To me, a NFL dynasty is a team that wins multiple championships in a short period of time. The Redskins win three and went to four Super Bowls in a ten year stretch, but I've never see that era for the 'Skins as a dynasty because the championship wins weren't close enough together. At least repeat or within three years...with at least conference championship appearances in between.

    Had the Greatest Show on Turf beaten the Pats I'd probably count them as a dynasty, albeit a short one.

    Also, no losing or non-play-off years between titles.

    Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk





  6. #66
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Balt-Wash corridor
    Posts
    24,538

    Re: Ranking the dynasties

    Quote Originally Posted by bacchys View Post
    Also, no losing or non-play-off years between titles.k
    That's part of the definition.

    They let a team have ONE, under the theory that maybe the QB gets hurt and misses a season, then they come roaring back. But a second losing / non-playoff year means that the dynasty ended (two seasons ago).





Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Link To Mobile Site
var infolinks_pid = 3297965; var infolinks_wsid = 0; //—->