Ranking the dynasties

**Dade** · 05-22-2020, 10:21 AM

Originally Posted by Captain Silver

It's the new Patriots/Brady vs Colts/Manning.

Been saying that for a while. Lamar v Mahomes is the new Brady v Manning

**Greg** · 05-22-2020, 10:47 AM

Originally Posted by HotInHere

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.

The Browns want you to hold their beer.

**Greg** · 05-22-2020, 10:59 AM

Originally Posted by HotInHere

I think the Flacco contract was the least "bad" of the three. Bottom line is you were going to have to pay Flacco -- a LOT. The narrative that it was expensive just because he won the SB I'm not buying. Even if the Mile High Miracle doesn't happen, a QB who wins a playoff game each of his first five years in the league was going to get PAID. And because of the cap situation with our overpriced veteran players at the time (Ray, Sizz, Ngata, Ed) they were not going to be able to sign him to a flat contract. Joe held all the cards. We couldn't afford the franchise tag, so either we had to come up with enough money to make him happy, or someone else would. Did the SB MVP up the price? Sure. But he was still going to be cripplingly expensive.

Pitta and Rice I think they were bidding against themselves somewhat. And of course, those were two situations of really bad luck for the franchise. Just goes to show you that proactively locking up your young talent is not always the best way to go.

I agree, even without the magical 2012 run if he just has his normal 1-2 playoff wins his contract still would have been $17-18 million per year instead of $20. Rice and Pitta were worse contracts. If Rice and Pitta played at 80% of their previous level during those contracts Flacco's numbers would be better and the success of the team somewhat better. If that happens Flacco's contract isn't viewed as negatively as it is now.

**Shas** · 05-22-2020, 11:03 AM

Not sure why they wouldn't include the 58-59 world champion colts with the 64-71 colts. Weeb was coach until '62 and then Shula took over. They did not have a below-500 team from 60-63, although they hovered near 500 in those years.

**Greg** · 05-22-2020, 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by seraph

They should have never given Flacco any contract.

This thought is dumb. Well, unless you are suggesting we bring back Boller, then this makes sense.

Even as an average QB you had to keep him given the dearth we experienced before that. And he was average except when he turned it on. Then he was very good.

Hell, I pay him just for the 2 late 4th QBs comebacks against the Steelers in Pittsburgh. Those were effing quite enjoyable as well.

**Greg** · 05-22-2020, 11:04 AM

Originally Posted by Dade

Been saying that for a while. Lamar v Mahomes is the new Brady v Manning

Not yet.

**JimZipCode** · 05-22-2020, 11:26 AM

Originally Posted by Shas

Not sure why they wouldn't include the 58-59 world champion colts with the 64-71 colts. Weeb was coach until '62 and then Shula took over. They did not have a below-500 team from 60-63, although they hovered near 500 in those years.

You should read the intro article linked in the OP. It covers methodology – I think it's quite interesting.

They didn't earn any "dynasty points" in the intervening years. No playoff berths 1960-64, and no high-win% teams that got screwed by weird tiebreakers. (Would have needed 8 wins in 1960, 9 in 61-4.) Instead you have four years of 3rd- & 4th-place finishes.

That definitively separates the earlier run of success from the later one.

https://forum.russellstreetreport.co...37#post1901037

won back-to-back titles in 1958 and 1958, and then followed that up with 6-6 and 8-6 seasons in 1960 and 1961. ... This really is a two-and-done team, stifled at the beginning by youth and inexperience, and at the end by injuries.
...
1960 saw Ameche, Berry, and Lenny Moore all suffer injuries, and Unitas' then-record 47-straight games with a touchdown snapped. Weeb Ewbank could never really pull those Colts out of their mediocrity, and he was fired after the 1962 season.

Many historians group this two-year run with the late 1960s as just the Johnny Unitas era, which is fair. But that 21-19 record for three years splits these two titles off from the 1960s success. Add in the difference between Ewbank's more laid-back style of coaching and the more popular Don Shula, and I think it's fair to consider them two separate runs.

**HotInHere** · 05-22-2020, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by Greg

The Browns want you to hold their beer.

Not even close. In the Browns worst 4-decade span -- which was obviously the past four decades -- they have had nine playoff appearances, four playoff wins, and nine winning seasons. And that's with three seasons out of the league.

The Steelers had one playoff appearance, zero playoff wins, and seven winning seasons in their first forty years. Of course that was also against far fewer teams in the league (i.e. easier to make the playoffs or win a championship.)

The Browns have more championships than the Steelers do (8 vs. 6) and looking at their total history have been a far more successful franchise.

**Shas** · 05-22-2020, 11:39 AM

Originally Posted by JimZipCode

You should read the intro article linked in the OP. It covers methodology – I think it's quite interesting.

They didn't earn any "dynasty points" in the intervening years. No playoff berths 1960-64, and no high-win% teams that got screwed by weird tiebreakers. (Would have needed 8 wins in 1960, 9 in 61-4.) Instead you have four years of 3rd- & 4th-place finishes.

That definitively separates the earlier run of success from the later one.

https://forum.russellstreetreport.co...37#post1901037

Okay, I get that. But do two seasons a dynasty make?

Saying the 58-59 seasons constitute a dynasty seems stranger to me than just saying that the Unitas-led Colts were a dynasty from 58-71, with some mediocre seasons thrown in.

**Greg** · 05-22-2020, 11:52 AM

Originally Posted by HotInHere

Not even close. In the Browns worst 4-decade span -- which was obviously the past four decades -- they have had nine playoff appearances, four playoff wins, and nine winning seasons. And that's with three seasons out of the league.

The Steelers had one playoff appearance, zero playoff wins, and seven winning seasons in their first forty years. Of course that was also against far fewer teams in the league (i.e. easier to make the playoffs or win a championship.)

The Browns have more championships than the Steelers do (8 vs. 6) and looking at their total history have been a far more successful franchise.

Just hold their beer, they ain't done yet.

**JimZipCode** · 05-22-2020, 08:33 PM

Originally Posted by Shas

Okay, I get that. But do two seasons a dynasty make?

Saying the 58-59 seasons constitute a dynasty seems stranger to me than just saying that the Unitas-led Colts were a dynasty from 58-71, with some mediocre seasons thrown in.

Dude, are you reading ANY of the prior stuff in this thread?

https://forum.russellstreetreport.co...37#post1901037

I know what you're thinking -- how can a "dynasty" last just two seasons? It's certainly the question all my editors asked when they saw the list; these Colts are the only team to hit 10 dynasty points with just a two-year run. The system was set up to be agnostic about how long a team needed to be successful to be a dynasty, but two years does seem ridiculous. Back-to-back championships are always going to be worth at least 10 points, but you would think any team good enough to win back-to-back titles would also have some success in the years around it. Not these Colts. They were 7-5 in 1957, won back-to-back titles in 1958 and 1958, and then followed that up with 6-6 and 8-6 seasons in 1960 and 1961.

That edition of the Colts cracks 10 points, so they make the list for discussion. The author of the FO stuff suggests a "dynasty point cutoff" of around 18 for "real" dynasties; so only the top ~20 or less would qualify. These Colts come in at #43 on their list.

**seraph** · 05-22-2020, 10:24 PM

Originally Posted by Greg

This thought is dumb. Well, unless you are suggesting we bring back Boller, then this makes sense.

Even as an average QB you had to keep him given the dearth we experienced before that. And he was average except when he turned it on. Then he was very good.

Hell, I pay him just for the 2 late 4th QBs comebacks against the Steelers in Pittsburgh. Those were effing quite enjoyable as well.

I was very aware after winning Super Bowl MVP he had all the leverage. That contract structure was still bad and it made it look like they put all their eggs in the Flacco basket. I guess I was so dumb to think that Flacco wasn't good enough to justify a terrible contract structure after what eventually unfolded and you can't just blame other bad contracts or whatever excuses people want to use. There wasn't anything about him that changed in the championship run when it mostly other pieces of the team that came together and all Flacco did was benefit from that.