NFL "Dynasties" in the Free Agent, Salary Cap era

Seels · Oct 1, 2018

The last time the Pats missed the AFCCG guys like Von Miller Cam Newton JJ Watt and Richard Sherman weren't even in the league. Baker Mayfield would have been a sophomore in high school. Saquon Barkey would have been 13.

The last time they missed the playoffs was the rookie year for guys like Chris Long, Matt Ryan, Chris Johnson, and Matt Forte.

The last time someone in the AFC East had more wins than them Clinton was still president, and the Sopranos had just finished its first season.

The Browns have two seasons they've finished .500 or better since moving back to Cleveland. The Pats two worst seasons in the last 18 had them lose the division on tiebreakers.

lexrageorge · Oct 1, 2018

Seels said:
The last time the Pats missed the AFCCG guys like Von Miller Cam Newton JJ Watt and Richard Sherman weren't even in the league. Baker Mayfield would have been a sophomore in high school. Saquon Barkey would have been 13.

The last time they missed the playoffs was the rookie year for guys like Chris Long, Matt Ryan, Chris Johnson, and Matt Forte.

The last time someone in the AFC East had more wins than them Clinton was still president, and the Sopranos had just finished its first season.

The Browns have two seasons they've finished .500 or better since moving back to Cleveland. The Pats two worst seasons in the last 18 had them lose the division on tiebreakers.

I remain convinced that the Pats were a far better team than the Dolphins that year; damn Wildcat cost the Pats the playoffs. I'm also convinced the Pats would have done better than Miami in that opening round against the Ravens.

tims4wins · Oct 1, 2018

I'd add the Broncos run from 2012-2015 under Manning. They went 50-14 in those 4 years with one title and another Super Bowl loss. That just adds to the list of teams that have come and gone since...

BigSoxFan · Oct 1, 2018

tims4wins said:
I'd add the Broncos run from 2012-2015 under Manning. They went 50-14 in those 4 years with one title and another Super Bowl loss. That just adds to the list of teams that have come and gone since...

And they probably would have had another SB appearance had Rahim Moore not completely F'd up that Flacco desperation bomb.

tims4wins · Oct 1, 2018

BigSoxFan said:
And they probably would have had another SB appearance had Rahim Moore not completely F'd up that Flacco desperation bomb.

Or if Saint Peyton didn't throw the OT pick

johnmd20 · Oct 1, 2018

Seels said:
The last time someone in the AFC East had more wins than them Clinton was still president, and the Sopranos had just finished its first season.

This is just incredible. So hard to believe. Impossible to believe, in fact. Yet. . . .

Kliq · Oct 1, 2018

The term dynasty is one of those weird sports-talk radio buzzwords that exist for the sole purpose of arguing about it's definition. Given the team's listed in the opening post, the question seems to be: What defines a dynasty? Does it have to be Super Bowl wins, or can a team just be one of the top three-to-five teams in the league for several years?

The Patriots are the only dynasty of the salary cap era; they are the only team to win more than two championships and have done it with the same QB/Coach combo. The only real argument against them is that the final two titles came a decade after the last of the first three had been won, but you could easily say that the team that won the first three titles was a dynasty itself, with largely the same key players and coaching staff.

Ultimately I think titles are the definitive characteristic...but it's hard to say that those Giant teams were anything close to resembling a dynasty despite the two rings. In the three seasons between their title wins they missed the playoffs twice and lost in the divisional round.

Papelbon's Poutine · Oct 1, 2018

Kliq said:
The term dynasty is one of those weird sports-talk radio buzzwords that exist for the sole purpose of arguing about it's definition. Given the team's listed in the opening post, the question seems to be: What defines a dynasty? Does it have to be Super Bowl wins, or can a team just be one of the top three-to-five teams in the league for several years?

The Patriots are the only dynasty of the salary cap era; they are the only team to win more than two championships and have done it with the same QB/Coach combo. The only real argument against them is that the final two titles came a decade after the last of the first three had been won, but you could easily say that the team that won the first three titles was a dynasty itself, with largely the same key players and coaching staff.

Ultimately I think titles are the definitive characteristic...but it's hard to say that those Giant teams were anything close to resembling a dynasty despite the two rings. In the three seasons between their title wins they missed the playoffs twice and lost in the divisional round.

I’m not sure how it’s a debate that it’s not a combination of both.

Does anyone consider the Braves of the 90s/00s a dynasty? They won plenty but only one ring. It’s impressive but certainly not a dynasty. You need titles.

The 04-13 Sox had three rings but also missed the playoffs and had some awful years mixed in, as well as major front office changes and managerial. Not a dynasty either (much like your Giants citation).

Consistency, dominance, stability and rings.

The Pats are the only dynasty in NFL salary cap era. Even without wearing my fan glasses, I’m not sure how it’s even a question. They’re the only big 4 sports dynasty since the Yankees, though I’d argue the Spurs are in there and the Dubs will soon be.

Kliq · Oct 1, 2018

Papelbon's Poutine said:
I’m not sure how it’s a debate that it’s not a combination of both.

Does anyone consider the Braves of the 90s/00s a dynasty? They won plenty but only one ring. It’s impressive but certainly not a dynasty. You need titles.

The 04-13 Sox had three rings but also missed the playoffs and had some awful years mixed in, as well as major front office changes and managerial. Not a dynasty either (much like your Giants citation).

Consistency, dominance, stability and rings.

The Pats are the only dynasty in NFL salary cap era. Even without wearing my fan glasses, I’m not sure how it’s even a question. They’re the only big 4 sports dynasty since the Yankees, though I’d argue the Spurs are in there and the Dubs will soon be.

I think a big portion of it is having the same key players/coaches involved. The Red Sox from 2004 to 2013 are vastly different teams; Papi is the only constant between them. As opposed to the Spurs, who won their titles pretty spread out and if you want to punt on the '99 title, it's still Pop/Duncan/Parker/Ginobili that are the key players and constants among four title winning teams.

The Shaqobe Lakers are probably a dynasty, they three-peated and nearly won four titles in five years.

williams_482 · Oct 1, 2018

Papelbon's Poutine said:
Does anyone consider the Braves of the 90s/00s a dynasty? They won plenty but only one ring. It’s impressive but certainly not a dynasty. You need titles.

How are they not a dynasty?

from 1991 to 2005 they finished 1st in the NL east 14 times, their only failure being a 2nd place finish (with a 68-46 record) in a strike shortened season. Six of those teams won 100+ games.

Sure, they only got all the way through MLB's crapshoot of a playoff gauntlet once, but the fact remains that the team was exceptionally good for an exceptionally long time. Any definition that will ignore that kind of sustained excellence because of some tough luck over small, selective samples seems seriously skewed.

Kliq · Oct 1, 2018

williams_482 said:
How are they not a dynasty?

from 1991 to 2005 they finished 1st in the NL east 14 times, their only failure being a 2nd place finish (with a 68-46 record) in a strike shortened season. Six of those teams won 100+ games.

Sure, they only got all the way through MLB's crapshoot of a playoff gauntlet once, but the fact remains that the team was exceptionally good for an exceptionally long time. Any definition that will ignore that kind of sustained excellence because of some tough luck over small, selective samples seems seriously skewed.

I don't know; nobody is arguing that those Braves teams were not great; but championships often come down to small, selective samples. If Scott Norwood doesn't miss that kick, the Bills have a championship and have basically the same argument as those Braves teams do.

williams_482 · Oct 1, 2018

Kliq said:
I don't know; nobody is arguing that those Braves teams were not great; but championships often come down to small, selective samples. If Scott Norwood doesn't miss that kick, the Bills have a championship and have basically the same argument as those Braves teams do.

I'd argue that the Bills have at least something of a case here, but regardless, finishing 1st five times and 2nd once over six seasons isn't even in the same league as what the braves did.

Seels · Oct 1, 2018

Yea I don't know that I'd put those Braves teams as a dynasty. The Bills comparison is very appropriate -- the best team of a bad league. The NL as a whole was pretty shitty for the majority of that time span and the Braves lost to a bunch of teams they had no business losing to. Talent heavy, sure, but when I think of the 90s Braves I think of losing to a bunch of blah teams that would get ran over by the Yankees a week later.

I don't think a post-free agency dynasty is really even possible in baseball. The Yankees did it in the 90s/early 00s, but even that was short lived compared to what the Pats have done. Stuff like the 3 WS wins in 9 years for the Sox and 3 in 5 years for the Giants aren't dynastic -- especially so for the Giants. Dynasties have to be linked to dominance. The 00s Pats were dominant in every sense of the word. The 80s Lakers were dominant, 90s Yankees dominant, etc. Going back to the Braves, they had a bunch of hall of fame talent, but dominant teams beat teams like the Padres and expansion Marlins.

( . ) ( . ) and (_!_) · Oct 2, 2018

Now in his 9th season Devin McCourty is at or approaching the grizzled veteran stage of his career. His rookie year they missed the AFC Championship, but other then that he has played in the AFC Championship game every season of his career.

If he hasn't had some injuries then Marcus Cannon, 2011 draft pick would have played in the AFC championship game every single season that he's been in the NFL.

Those are incredible facts for 8 and 9 year veteran players.

Papelbon's Poutine · Oct 2, 2018

williams_482 said:
How are they not a dynasty?

from 1991 to 2005 they finished 1st in the NL east 14 times, their only failure being a 2nd place finish (with a 68-46 record) in a strike shortened season. Six of those teams won 100+ games.

Sure, they only got all the way through MLB's crapshoot of a playoff gauntlet once, but the fact remains that the team was exceptionally good for an exceptionally long time. Any definition that will ignore that kind of sustained excellence because of some tough luck over small, selective samples seems seriously skewed.

Because they only won a title once. Any definition that includes going 1 for 5 for the trophy seems skewed to me - whomever mentioned the Bills is spot on. And off topic a bit, but "crapshoot of a playoff gauntlet" is overplayed imo when making excuses for baseball teams not meeting potential, at least versus other sports. Would you rather have that or have one game per round like an NFL team? It's a lot harder to have every game be do or die.

Super Nomario · Oct 2, 2018

Papelbon's Poutine said:
Because they only won a title once. Any definition that includes going 1 for 5 for the trophy seems skewed to me - whomever mentioned the Bills is spot on. And off topic a bit, but "crapshoot of a playoff gauntlet" is overplayed imo when making excuses for baseball teams not meeting potential, at least versus other sports. Would you rather have that or have one game per round like an NFL team? It's a lot harder to have every game be do or die.

Baseball is less deterministic than football (which is less deterministic than basketball). And in the NFL, you also have byes for the top teams; the Patriots have not only made a ton of AFCCGs in a row, they've been the 1/2 seed every year since 2010, so they've only needed to win one game to get there, and two to get to the Super Bowl.

Papelbon's Poutine · Oct 2, 2018

Super Nomario said:
Baseball is less deterministic than football (which is less deterministic than basketball). And in the NFL, you also have byes for the top teams; the Patriots have not only made a ton of AFCCGs in a row, they've been the 1/2 seed every year since 2010, so they've only needed to win one game to get there, and two to get to the Super Bowl.

I have quite literally no idea if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me...and I've read this post like twelve times and it'd be about 50/50. Maybe I'm just hungry...

So, you're argument is that because baseball is 7 games as opposed to one, it's less deterministic (I have no idea what your basketball comp is there)...but they should be given more credit for not getting through an easier process to be called a dynasty...and the Pats earning a bye is a negative how, exactly, when factoring in that the system is more deterministic?

Super Nomario · Oct 2, 2018

Papelbon's Poutine said:
So, you're argument is that because baseball is 7 games as opposed to one, it's less deterministic (I have no idea what your basketball comp is there),

No, just the nature of the sport itself. We talk about "any given Sunday," but really it's way more true in baseball. As good as the Red Sox were this year and as terrible as the Orioles were, it's not weird at all if the Orioles beat the Red Sox or even take 2/3 in a series. Upsets are less common in football. The Sox were amazing this year and finished with 108 wins, which is a little worse by winning percentage than an 11-5 record. NFL teams routinely finish better than this. There are SSS in 16-game records, but the Patriots are 125-39 in their last 164 games, so it is not just SSS. By coincidence, the Golden State Warriors are also 125-39 in their last 164 games (and they were 140-24 from 2015-16 to 2016-17).

Papelbon's Poutine said:
...but they should be given more credit for not getting through an easier process to be called a dynasty...and the Pats earning a bye is a negative how, exactly, when factoring in that the system is more deterministic?

My point is that the "best" teams win more often in football than in baseball (and even more often in basketball than in football). Part of that is because of the nature of the game (see above), but part is also a playoff structure that rewards the best teams in each conference more than baseball's system does.

I'm still probably not making the point I'm getting at clear, but I would say: it's not that weird to have a stretch like the Braves where you are the best baseball team over a long period and don't win a lot of championships, because the playoffs are pretty close to a crapshoot. There is still some crapshootiness to the NFL playoffs because of single elimination, but 1/2 seeds get byes so that helps. Basketball playoffs are the most meritocratic, which is why the best teams / biggest superstars win over and over. I'd hold it against the '90's Jazz that they didn't win a championship, because if you're the best team, you really ought to (and win several). I'm not as inclined to hold it against the Braves.

mauf · Oct 3, 2018

The best football team wins the Super Bowl more often than the best baseball team wins the World Series, but less often than the best basketball team wins the NBA Finals. There’s just a lot of variance in baseball, such that the better team is never going to be more than a modest favorite in a 7-game series.

So I’d argue that the 1991-2005 Braves are the greatest baseball dynasty since the advent of divisional play 50 years ago. But if we’re talking other sports, I agree that multiple titles are a prerequisite for dynasty status — the Bills certainly aren’t a dynasty, and wouldn’t be even if Scott Norwood doesn’t push that FG attempt.

wade boggs chicken dinner · Oct 3, 2018

2008-2012 Ravens were 54-26 with a Super Bowl.

Heard on the radio - sounds true but haven't verified it - that there are only two teams to have won a Super Bowl with a QB making more than $20M dollars.

This era - salary cap, guaranteed money, and passing-friendly rules - have really done some weird things to team building. QBs are so valuable that to generate elite production from a QB on a rookie contract gives teams a really unfair advantage. Also, the philosophy that the Pats and Ravens have of getting extra draft picks seems like the correct one the way contracts are structured.

PC Drunken Friar · Oct 3, 2018

wade boggs chicken dinner said:
2008-2012 Ravens were 54-26 with a Super Bowl.

Heard on the radio - sounds true but haven't verified it - that there are only two teams to have won a Super Bowl with a QB making more than $20M dollars.

This era - salary cap, guaranteed money, and passing-friendly rules - have really done some weird things to team building. QBs are so valuable that to generate elite production from a QB on a rookie contract gives teams a really unfair advantage. Also, the philosophy that the Pats and Ravens have of getting extra draft picks seems like the correct one the way contracts are structured.

I believe it. But a quick google search tells me that the first 20 Million $ contract was Drew Brees in 2013.

So the two teams are the Ravens with Flacco and the Broncos with Manning. Wentz and Wilson were still on their rookie contracts and Brady is underpaid.

wade boggs chicken dinner · Oct 3, 2018

PC Drunken Friar said:
I believe it. But a quick google search tells me that the first 20 Million $ contract was Drew Brees in 2013.

So the two teams are the Ravens with Flacco and the Broncos with Manning. Wentz and Wilson were still on their rookie contracts and Brady is underpaid.

It's not Flacco - Flacco won and then got paid. I think the second person is Brady but it's hard to figure out how much he's paid in any given year.

Which (while looking for the second guy), I realize the criteria doesn't make sense because contracts are complicated enough that it's tough to figure out how much anyone got paid in any given year. As such, here's the better list: QBs as percentage of cap hit (not my list; I found it on the internet but seems basically correct):

NortheasternPJ · Oct 3, 2018

BaseballJones said:
Bledsoe is listed as the QB for 2001. Of course he started the season as the starter but he wasn't really the QB for that season.

Same with Tony Banks. It's still amazing that they could win with Dilfer and Banks, even with that D.

Pretty sure Matt Flynn didn't really impact the 2013 Seahawks either, unless we're just talking dead money on the cap.

I'd imagine all 3 were the highest paid QB's on the roster though.

SMU_Sox · Oct 3, 2018

BaseballJones said:
Bledsoe is listed as the QB for 2001. Of course he started the season as the starter but he wasn't really the QB for that season.

His salary counted though. It might be more accurate to have total allocated QB cost but that's not going to add much as Brady's contract should have been minimal back then. In most cases the backup QB is a negligible cost so you wouldn't expect to see these numbers significantly change.

lapa · Oct 4, 2018

I’m no fan of the new patriots or the nfl* but by god that 17 year record is fucking ridiculous

* the nfl hit the UK in the 80s and I jumped on the riggins bandwagon which was actually why I picked the Red Sox (redskins Red Sox ) when mlb came on tv in 86 too. I don’t THINK it’s the colossal suck of the Snyder era or just him being a complete tool but it certainly saw my interest dwindle on top of the shit FA system where you no longer knew who teams really were and then they messed so much with rules and tv coverage got unbearable to watch so I just can’t stand to watch it any more. I did fondly remember the 80s patriots and that elaborate logo. As a neutral outsider they’re not as fun now they’ve been a terminator like machine with a robot coach and a fake as crap shit eating grin QB on top

Still, tip of the cap it’s remarkable and unfathomable how they’ve maintained that performance for two decades

Papelbon's Poutine · Oct 4, 2018

Super Nomario said:
No, just the nature of the sport itself. We talk about "any given Sunday," but really it's way more true in baseball. As good as the Red Sox were this year and as terrible as the Orioles were, it's not weird at all if the Orioles beat the Red Sox or even take 2/3 in a series. Upsets are less common in football. The Sox were amazing this year and finished with 108 wins, which is a little worse by winning percentage than an 11-5 record. NFL teams routinely finish better than this. There are SSS in 16-game records, but the Patriots are 125-39 in their last 164 games, so it is not just SSS. By coincidence, the Golden State Warriors are also 125-39 in their last 164 games (and they were 140-24 from 2015-16 to 2016-17).

My point is that the "best" teams win more often in football than in baseball (and even more often in basketball than in football). Part of that is because of the nature of the game (see above), but part is also a playoff structure that rewards the best teams in each conference more than baseball's system does.

I'm still probably not making the point I'm getting at clear, but I would say: it's not that weird to have a stretch like the Braves where you are the best baseball team over a long period and don't win a lot of championships, because the playoffs are pretty close to a crapshoot. There is still some crapshootiness to the NFL playoffs because of single elimination, but 1/2 seeds get byes so that helps. Basketball playoffs are the most meritocratic, which is why the best teams / biggest superstars win over and over. I'd hold it against the '90's Jazz that they didn't win a championship, because if you're the best team, you really ought to (and win several). I'm not as inclined to hold it against the Braves.

I don't really disagree with any of this. I just think if you lose out on the crapshootiness, you don't get to be called a dynasty; and that the NBA is so much more single player dominant than any other sport, it's a bit of an outlier.

maufman said:
The best football team wins the Super Bowl more often than the best baseball team wins the World Series, but less often than the best basketball team wins the NBA Finals. There’s just a lot of variance in baseball, such that the better team is never going to be more than a modest favorite in a 7-game series.

So I’d argue that the 1991-2005 Braves are the greatest baseball dynasty since the advent of divisional play 50 years ago. But if we’re talking other sports, I agree that multiple titles are a prerequisite for dynasty status — the Bills certainly aren’t a dynasty, and wouldn’t be even if Scott Norwood doesn’t push that FG attempt.

To your first, that brings in the whole argument of how to determine the best team in baseball. The unbalanced schedule brings in a lot of variance in. I'd probably agree with your overall point, but there's plenty of times the best football team doesn't win the SB; coaching and game plan and injury play a much larger role there.
To your second, sorry, have to disagree. I don't know how you'd take the Braves (14 divisions, 1/5 in WS) over the Yankees 1996-2006 (9/10 divisions, 4/6 WS).

InstaFace · Oct 4, 2018

Kliq said:
I don't know; nobody is arguing that those Braves teams were not great; but championships often come down to small, selective samples. If Scott Norwood doesn't miss that kick, the Bills have a championship and have basically the same argument as those Braves teams do.

Apples and oranges. Depending on how you want to define it, the better team wins in football and basketball something like 90% of the time, while in baseball it's more like 60% of the time. If the Braves went into the playoffs with a 60% chance of winning every series, they'd have a 22% chance of winning it all and you'd expect 3 championships in 15 years. (sidenote: this is a fun series-outcome probability calculator) But coming down on the lower half of that probability distribution isn't exactly shameful, given what they had already proved over 162 games.

The better test of their quality is certainly the regular season, which is why I wish we hadn't over-fetishized the MLB playoffs. I wish instead we could respect and hope for a league trophy, a la european football, where the test of the grind of the top league over the entire season is the greatest domestic prize.

The 90s-00s Braves are dynastic in my mind, by the relative standards of their sport. I would not be so forgiving for, say, an NBA team who didn't have playoff success, since a playoff series there is much less down to luck.

edit: rereading this, I see Super Nomario made the same point, but I'll leave my own spin on it here. So that leads to:

Papelbon's Poutine said:
I don't really disagree with any of this. I just think if you lose out on the crapshootiness, you don't get to be called a dynasty; and that the NBA is so much more single player dominant than any other sport, it's a bit of an outlier.

The NBA's postseason isn't much more deterministic than the NFL's, frankly. Upsets, where a team with meaningfully better regular season results loses (normally at home) to a team with worse ones, are quite rare. I'm with SN that my judgment of "dynasty: yes/no" in the NBA turns on titles a lot more than it does in any other sport.

Papelbon's Poutine said:
To your first, that brings in the whole argument of how to determine the best team in baseball. The unbalanced schedule brings in a lot of variance in. I'd probably agree with your overall point, but there's plenty of times the best football team doesn't win the SB; coaching and game plan and injury play a much larger role there.
To your second, sorry, have to disagree. I don't know how you'd take the Braves (14 divisions, 1/5 in WS) over the Yankees 1996-2006 (9/10 divisions, 4/6 WS).

The Braves averaged 97.3 wins, the Yankees 98.1 wins, over 2/3s the timespan of the Braves. I'm with Mauf, but I think there's an argument in both directions.

Defining the "best" team based on regular season results can be tricky, particularly for the NFL with such small sample sizes. In general, I'd go with SRS since it adds an opponent adjustment factor that helps smooth out the unbalanced schedules, but it's still very flawed. I'd say if you're within +/- half a standard deviation of the highest SRS, you're probably in the argument for best team, and in the NFL we can let those differences be sorted out by the playoffs. In MLB, with literally >10x the sample, perhaps the range of contenders is a smaller window and we can just call it based on regular season unless it's within, I dunno, 0.1-0.2 or so. By that measure, Houston was the best team this year by 0.3 in SRS, a conclusion I'm comfortable with.

Pandemonium67 · Oct 4, 2018

lapa said:
...a fake as crap shit eating grin QB...

To each his own, but when I hear this description it isn't TB that first comes to mind.

NFL "Dynasties" in the Free Agent, Salary Cap era

ivanvamp

Member

Member

PN23's replacement

Member

PN23's replacement

mad dog

Member

Homeland Security

ivanvamp

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

T&A

Homeland Security

Member

Homeland Security

Member

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers

Member

Member

Member

ivanvamp

Member

queer eye for the next pats guy

ivanvamp

New Member

Homeland Security

The Ultimate One

Member