Results 13 to 24 of 66
Thread: Ranking the dynasties
-
05-13-2020, 01:03 AM #13
Re: Ranking the dynasties
Sooo, interesting site. But I have one HUGE gripe: Apologies to any Vikings, Rams or Bills fans, but there is no way in hell any team should ever be called a "dynasty" without winning even one single championship.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but NOT to their own facts" - Daniel P. Moynihan
-
05-13-2020, 01:19 AM #14
-
05-13-2020, 01:58 AM #15
-
05-13-2020, 04:48 AM #16
Re: Ranking the dynasties
"A moron, a rapist, and a Pittsburgh Steeler walk into a bar. He sits down and says, “Hi I’m Ben may I have a drink please?”
ProFootballMock
-
05-13-2020, 06:13 AM #17
Re: Ranking the dynasties
Dynastic mediocrity...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
-
05-13-2020, 07:58 AM #19
-
05-13-2020, 08:00 AM #20
-
05-13-2020, 10:15 AM #21
Re: Ranking the dynasties
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but NOT to their own facts" - Daniel P. Moynihan
-
05-13-2020, 10:16 AM #22Four-eyed Raven
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
- Location
- Balt-Wash corridor
- Posts
- 24,676
Re: Ranking the dynasties
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.
-
05-13-2020, 12:02 PM #23
Re: Ranking the dynasties
I would say it all counts, but I think the number of teams weighs heavily in the difficulty of winning a championship. In 1965 you were 1 of 14 teams. In 1975 you were 1 of 26. In 1935 there were only 9 teams!
I only skimmed the FO methodology, but it seems like they don't adequately control for this. But what they did is still insightful and interesting. Thanks for posting it JZC.
fivethirtyeight also did a dynasty ranking a while back. NE's current dynasty and SF's 80s dynasty are 1 and 2 on both lists. The 70's Steelers also rank top 5 in both lists.
-
05-13-2020, 12:19 PM #24
Re: Ranking the dynasties
The other way of looking at that is that before the merger, the Steelers played in the NFL for 33 years. In that time the number of teams in the NFL ranged from 8 to 16. For most of that time the top two teams from each division (4-8 teams) made the playoffs. Given your logic that it is easier to win a championship when there are fewer teams, how absolutely absurd is it that in those 33 years years, the Steelers played in ONE playoff game? And of course they lost it. (1947)
That's why they don't like to talk about the pre-SB era. Because I do not think there is anywhere in the wide world of sport a 4-decade level of incompetence that comes close to what the Pittsburgh Steelers put together."Chin up, chest out."
Bookmarks