The New Dynasty

[The Gipper]

It is now the 2010s and the Team of the Decade of the 00s (NE Patriots) has been eliminated from consideration of adding to

their championship total. Ergo, it is time to look ahead to which team will be the New Dynasty. To identify than New Dynasty, if the past is any indication, look for a team that has had a fairly consistent LOSING record over the past 10 years, prior to the start of that team's dynastic reign. Here is why I say so:

 

The Dynasty of the 00s, the Patriots, had an overall 72-88 record in the 10 years prior to their first SB title in 2001 and won no titles. (they went from 5-11 to winning the SB)

 

The Dynasty of the 90s, the Cowboys, had an overall 73-79 record in the 10 years prior to their first SB of the 90s and won no titles. Though they were of championship caliber in the 70s, the same was not true for most of the 80s, particularly the latter part of the 80s.

 

The Dynasty of the 80s, the 49ers, had an overall 56-89-1 record in the 10 years prior to their first SB in 1981 and won no titles (including one playoff year prior to winning their first SB)

 

The Dynasty of the 70s, the Steelers, had an overall 48-86-6 record in the 10 years prior to their first SB in 1974 and won no titles (including two playoff years prior to winning the SB.

 

The Dynasty of the 60s, the Packers, had an overall 44-74-2 record in the 10 years prior to winning the 1961 title and won no titles (though losing the NFL title game of 1960 to the Eagles)

 

The Dynasty of the 50s was the Browns, but since they are a special case and only played 4 years prior to the 50s, we will look at Dynasty 1B of the 50s: The Lions. In the 10 years prior to their first title in that decade in 1952 the Lions had an overall record of 39-70-3 and no titles.

 

The Dynasty of the 40s, the Bears, are the one exception to this rule. In the 10 years prior to their 1940 title they went 85-28-11, and did win a couple of titles in the 30s.

 

Ergo, if you wish to ID the team that history says will dominate the decade of the 2010s look to the losers of the 2000s. Here are your primary candidates, i.e. the teams with losing records in the decade, through 12/7/2009:

 

Lions: 42-114

Browns: 53-104

Texans: 45-79

Cardinals: 63-97

Raiders: 65-98

Bills: 64-92

49ers: 66-93

Bengals: 67-89-1

Chiefs: 69-89

Redskins: 70-89

Rams: 74-89

Falcons: 74-86-1

Jaguars: 77-82

Jets: 79-83

Bucs: 80-83

Dolphins: 79-81

Panthers: 81-83

 

These numbers include playoff games, thus the slight variation in overall number of games for some teams. (Texans only since 2002).

 

So? Who is your top candidates for team of the 2010s?

 

 

[BrownsBacker85]

CLEVELAND BROWNS BABY!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ClevelandFanForLife]

browns would make me happiest obviously but i really just don't want the patriots, steelers, cowboys, or ravens to do it.

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

The Browns, of course. And if not us, then......

 

 

 

The L.A. Rams.

 

 

They're going back.

[hoorta]

The Browns, of course. And if not us, then......

 

 

 

The L.A. Rams.

 

 

They're going back.

 

It will more likely be the LA Jaguars, unless St. Tebow comes in and rescues them. The NFL made a huge mistake putting a team in J-ville, the area just isn't big enough to support a team when they have a run of down years.

 

Interesting list, though depends on what you want to call a "dynasty". As long as Manning is playing for the Colts, they're going to be a threat, and the Bills were a shanked Scott Norwood FG away from being in that category. The 60s Vikes with Tarkenton and the Purple People Eaters were mighty good too.

 

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

It will more likely be the LA Jaguars, unless St. Tebow comes in and rescues them. The NFL made a huge mistake putting a team in J-ville, the area just isn't big enough to support a team when they have a run of down years.

 

Interesting list, though depends on what you want to call a "dynasty". As long as Manning is playing for the Colts, they're going to be a threat, and the Bills were a shanked Scott Norwood FG away from being in that category. The 60s Vikes with Tarkenton and the Purple People Eaters were mighty good too.

 

I fully believe that Tebow will be drafted by Jacksonville, Del Rio will leave his job for USC or another college coaching position, and Urban Meyer has been blowing smoke up everyone's asses and is following Tebow wherever he goes.

 

 

Then again, I also believe in ghosts.

[TN Browns Backer]

Back from my multi-month absence hah.

 

I think the Dolphins will be the 10's dynasty. I like what they have been doing in terms of building, and Henne really started to come into his own this year. They have Ginn on return and WR, and could really establish depth behind a promising looking young group of core players, including a fairly decent defense. Not to mention their RB by committee approach, even though Ricky Williams will be done sooner then later and Ronnie Brown is injury prone usually.

 

Thats Bill Parcel's magic at its best. Lets home Holmgren can do the same for us!

[cdl15]

It is now the 2010s and the Team of the Decade of the 00s (NE Patriots) has been eliminated from consideration of adding to

their championship total. Ergo, it is time to look ahead to which team will be the New Dynasty. To identify than New Dynasty, if the past is any indication, look for a team that has had a fairly consistent LOSING record over the past 10 years, prior to the start of that team's dynastic reign. Here is why I say so:

 

The Dynasty of the 00s, the Patriots, had an overall 72-88 record in the 10 years prior to their first SB title in 2001 and won no titles. (they went from 5-11 to winning the SB)

 

The Dynasty of the 90s, the Cowboys, had an overall 73-79 record in the 10 years prior to their first SB of the 90s and won no titles. Though they were of championship caliber in the 70s, the same was not true for most of the 80s, particularly the latter part of the 80s.

 

The Dynasty of the 80s, the 49ers, had an overall 56-89-1 record in the 10 years prior to their first SB in 1981 and won no titles (including one playoff year prior to winning their first SB)

 

The Dynasty of the 70s, the Steelers, had an overall 48-86-6 record in the 10 years prior to their first SB in 1974 and won no titles (including two playoff years prior to winning the SB.

 

The Dynasty of the 60s, the Packers, had an overall 44-74-2 record in the 10 years prior to winning the 1961 title and won no titles (though losing the NFL title game of 1960 to the Eagles)

 

The Dynasty of the 50s was the Browns, but since they are a special case and only played 4 years prior to the 50s, we will look at Dynasty 1B of the 50s: The Lions. In the 10 years prior to their first title in that decade in 1952 the Lions had an overall record of 39-70-3 and no titles.

 

The Dynasty of the 40s, the Bears, are the one exception to this rule. In the 10 years prior to their 1940 title they went 85-28-11, and did win a couple of titles in the 30s.

 

Ergo, if you wish to ID the team that history says will dominate the decade of the 2010s look to the losers of the 2000s. Here are your primary candidates, i.e. the teams with losing records in the decade, through 12/7/2009:

 

Lions: 42-114

Browns: 53-104

Texans: 45-79

Cardinals: 63-97

Raiders: 65-98

Bills: 64-92

49ers: 66-93

Bengals: 67-89-1

Chiefs: 69-89

Redskins: 70-89

Rams: 74-89

Falcons: 74-86-1

Jaguars: 77-82

Jets: 79-83

Bucs: 80-83

Dolphins: 79-81

Panthers: 81-83

 

These numbers include playoff games, thus the slight variation in overall number of games for some teams. (Texans only since 2002).

 

So? Who is your top candidates for team of the 2010s?

KC or the Falcons too very young and up and coming teams

 

Don't want to be a dynasty just want to win one superbowl

[Zombo]

It is now the 2010s and the Team of the Decade of the 00s (NE Patriots) has been eliminated from consideration of adding to

their championship total. Ergo, it is time to look ahead to which team will be the New Dynasty. To identify than New Dynasty, if the past is any indication, look for a team that has had a fairly consistent LOSING record over the past 10 years, prior to the start of that team's dynastic reign. Here is why I say so:

 

The Dynasty of the 00s, the Patriots, had an overall 72-88 record in the 10 years prior to their first SB title in 2001 and won no titles. (they went from 5-11 to winning the SB)

 

The Dynasty of the 90s, the Cowboys, had an overall 73-79 record in the 10 years prior to their first SB of the 90s and won no titles. Though they were of championship caliber in the 70s, the same was not true for most of the 80s, particularly the latter part of the 80s.

 

The Dynasty of the 80s, the 49ers, had an overall 56-89-1 record in the 10 years prior to their first SB in 1981 and won no titles (including one playoff year prior to winning their first SB)

 

The Dynasty of the 70s, the Steelers, had an overall 48-86-6 record in the 10 years prior to their first SB in 1974 and won no titles (including two playoff years prior to winning the SB.

 

The Dynasty of the 60s, the Packers, had an overall 44-74-2 record in the 10 years prior to winning the 1961 title and won no titles (though losing the NFL title game of 1960 to the Eagles)

 

The Dynasty of the 50s was the Browns, but since they are a special case and only played 4 years prior to the 50s, we will look at Dynasty 1B of the 50s: The Lions. In the 10 years prior to their first title in that decade in 1952 the Lions had an overall record of 39-70-3 and no titles.

 

The Dynasty of the 40s, the Bears, are the one exception to this rule. In the 10 years prior to their 1940 title they went 85-28-11, and did win a couple of titles in the 30s.

 

Ergo, if you wish to ID the team that history says will dominate the decade of the 2010s look to the losers of the 2000s. Here are your primary candidates, i.e. the teams with losing records in the decade, through 12/7/2009:

 

Lions: 42-114

Browns: 53-104

Texans: 45-79

Cardinals: 63-97

Raiders: 65-98

Bills: 64-92

49ers: 66-93

Bengals: 67-89-1

Chiefs: 69-89

Redskins: 70-89

Rams: 74-89

Falcons: 74-86-1

Jaguars: 77-82

Jets: 79-83

Bucs: 80-83

Dolphins: 79-81

Panthers: 81-83

 

These numbers include playoff games, thus the slight variation in overall number of games for some teams. (Texans only since 2002).

 

So? Who is your top candidates for team of the 2010s?

 

Well, when you look at those dynasties, not only do they all have great coaching (Brown, Lombardi, Noll, Walsh, Johnson, Belichick), great defenses, and all but NE had great running backs (Jim Brown, Jim Taylor, Franco Harris, Roger Craig, Emmit Smith) ... but they all had very young franchise QBs that coincided with the start of the dynasty.

 

While Otto Graham was a veteran due to the AAFC years (when the Browns dynasty really began), Bart Starr took over in 1959 before the packers explosion in the 60's. Terry Bradshaw was drafted in 1970 and the Steelers won four Super Bowls by the end of the decade. Montana drafted in '79, became starter in 80. Aikman drafted in 89, 3 SBs in the 90's. Brady drafted 2000.

 

So if you look at the Packers, Steelers, 49ers, Cowboys and Patriots, the last five dynasties ... they all got their quarterback in the last year of the previous decade or the first year of the next decade.

 

Looking at your list, the Buccaneers, Jets and Lions each drafted a rookie QB in 09 that is their starter of the future, so they seem to be the leading candidates. And it seems the Browns need to grab one in 10 or wait until the next dacade to be a dynasty contenders.

 

Zombo

--Sam Bradford?

[The Gipper]

It will more likely be the LA Jaguars, unless St. Tebow comes in and rescues them. The NFL made a huge mistake putting a team in J-ville, the area just isn't big enough to support a team when they have a run of down years.

 

Interesting list, though depends on what you want to call a "dynasty". As long as Manning is playing for the Colts, they're going to be a threat, and the Bills were a shanked Scott Norwood FG away from being in that category. The 60s Vikes with Tarkenton and the Purple People Eaters were mighty good too.

 

I think of a dynasty as a team that had at least 3 titles in a decade. Recall a little while back I created a point system for a "Team of Each Decade". The Pats "won" the 00s, the Cowboys the 90s, the Niners the 80s, the Steelers the 70s, the Packers the 60s, the Browns the 50s, the Bears the 40s, the Packers the 30s, and I believe the Bulldogs won the 20s.

It is forseeable with 32 teams, and parity that a decade could go by in which no team would win as many as 3 titles. The 2010s may be that era.

 

[The Gipper]

I fully believe that Tebow will be drafted by Jacksonville, Del Rio will leave his job for USC or another college coaching position, and Urban Meyer has been blowing smoke up everyone's asses and is following Tebow wherever he goes.

 

 

Then again, I also believe in ghosts.

 

 

Quite an interesting scenario you paint there: Tebow and Meyer to the Jags, Del Rio to the Viagras. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing it....though I would bet against that combo becoming the next NFL dynasty.

[The Gipper]

KC or the Falcons too very young and up and coming teams

 

Don't want to be a dynasty just want to win one superbowl

 

Why not be greedy and want to win 5 titles like the Packers?

 

[The Gipper]

Well, when you look at those dynasties, not only do they all have great coaching (Brown, Lombardi, Noll, Walsh, Johnson, Belichick), great defenses, and all but NE had great running backs (Jim Brown, Jim Taylor, Franco Harris, Roger Craig, Emmit Smith) ... but they all had very young franchise QBs that coincided with the start of the dynasty.

 

While Otto Graham was a veteran due to the AAFC years (when the Browns dynasty really began), Bart Starr took over in 1959 before the packers explosion in the 60's. Terry Bradshaw was drafted in 1970 and the Steelers won four Super Bowls by the end of the decade. Montana drafted in '79, became starter in 80. Aikman drafted in 89, 3 SBs in the 90's. Brady drafted 2000.

 

So if you look at the Packers, Steelers, 49ers, Cowboys and Patriots, the last five dynasties ... they all got their quarterback in the last year of the previous decade or the first year of the next decade.

 

Looking at your list, the Buccaneers, Jets and Lions each drafted a rookie QB in 09 that is their starter of the future, so they seem to be the leading candidates. And it seems the Browns need to grab one in 10 or wait until the next dacade to be a dynasty contenders.

 

Zombo

--Sam Bradford?

 

I think you have something there, and perhaps the team in best position with a good young QB, a good defense, and a good philosophy may be the Jets. That would make Mike Greenberg insufferable on the radio.

Note also that of the 5 teams you list, only 2 of them got that QB with a super high draft pick: Bradshaw and Aikman. Brady we know was a 6th rounder, Montana a 3rd rounder, and Bart Starr was picked in the 17th round. (I always said he was the best value pick in the history of the NFL...fair to say). So, perhaps we should look at the QBs that may be selected in the 3rd to 7th round of this draft for the next field general of a new dynasty. Tony Pike maybe?

[Thaak]

I think you have something there, and perhaps the team in best position with a good young QB, a good defense, and a good philosophy may be the Jets. That would make Mike Greenberg insufferable on the radio.

Note also that of the 5 teams you list, only 2 of them got that QB with a super high draft pick: Bradshaw and Aikman. Brady we know was a 6th rounder, Montana a 3rd rounder, and Bart Starr was picked in the 17th round. (I always said he was the best value pick in the history of the NFL...fair to say). So, perhaps we should look at the QBs that may be selected in the 3rd to 7th round of this draft for the next field general of a new dynasty. Tony Pike maybe?

 

 

Before I read Zombo's quote, I also noted, that the last two dynasties' losing seasons were hovering just below .500 compared to the Packers, Steelers and 49'ers who were all hovering right around .300 to .400. So taking the 90's and 00's (Aughts?) as a trend, I'd have to go with the Jets.

 

Zombo's thoughts on each team getting a brand new young QB fits the Jets as well.

 

Anyone know if the same can be said for other skilled players (RB, WR, DB, Pass Rusher?)

[Canton Mike]

Teams tend to "age out" & decline. I really feel that free agency can somewhat offset that, IF teams are judicious & don't jump at veteran super stars on the downside looking for upside paychecks (aka Savage syndrome). You MAY find a young guy or two on the rise (then get 'em & pay 'em), but best bet is how Mangini did it last year.....get solid DEPTH, then shoot for playmakers in the draft.

Mike

[The Gipper]

Well, when you look at those dynasties, not only do they all have great coaching (Brown, Lombardi, Noll, Walsh, Johnson, Belichick), great defenses, and all but NE had great running backs (Jim Brown, Jim Taylor, Franco Harris, Roger Craig, Emmit Smith) ... but they all had very young franchise QBs that coincided with the start of the dynasty.

 

While Otto Graham was a veteran due to the AAFC years (when the Browns dynasty really began), Bart Starr took over in 1959 before the packers explosion in the 60's. Terry Bradshaw was drafted in 1970 and the Steelers won four Super Bowls by the end of the decade. Montana drafted in '79, became starter in 80. Aikman drafted in 89, 3 SBs in the 90's. Brady drafted 2000.

 

So if you look at the Packers, Steelers, 49ers, Cowboys and Patriots, the last five dynasties ... they all got their quarterback in the last year of the previous decade or the first year of the next decade.

 

Looking at your list, the Buccaneers, Jets and Lions each drafted a rookie QB in 09 that is their starter of the future, so they seem to be the leading candidates. And it seems the Browns need to grab one in 10 or wait until the next dacade to be a dynasty contenders.

 

Zombo

--Sam Bradford?

 

Just FYI Zombo, Jim Brown really was not a part of the Browns dynasty which really went from '46 to '55 with OG at QB. The Browns only won one title with JB in uniform, the 1964 title. But....they did have Marion Motley, so your theory is right, just the wrong RB.

 

[The Gipper]

Teams tend to "age out" & decline. I really feel that free agency can somewhat offset that, IF teams are judicious & don't jump at veteran super stars on the downside looking for upside paychecks (aka Savage syndrome). You MAY find a young guy or two on the rise (then get 'em & pay 'em), but best bet is how Mangini did it last year.....get solid DEPTH, then shoot for playmakers in the draft.

Mike

 

Free agency may also tend to remove the possibility of a dynasty coming to fruition these days. You might not see a team win more than 1 or 2 titles in a decade.

[Browns57]

Well, when you look at those dynasties, not only do they all have great coaching (Brown, Lombardi, Noll, Walsh, Johnson, Belichick), great defenses, and all but NE had great running backs (Jim Brown, Jim Taylor, Franco Harris, Roger Craig, Emmit Smith) ... but they all had very young franchise QBs that coincided with the start of the dynasty.

 

While Otto Graham was a veteran due to the AAFC years (when the Browns dynasty really began), Bart Starr took over in 1959 before the packers explosion in the 60's. Terry Bradshaw was drafted in 1970 and the Steelers won four Super Bowls by the end of the decade. Montana drafted in '79, became starter in 80. Aikman drafted in 89, 3 SBs in the 90's. Brady drafted 2000.

 

So if you look at the Packers, Steelers, 49ers, Cowboys and Patriots, the last five dynasties ... they all got their quarterback in the last year of the previous decade or the first year of the next decade.

 

Looking at your list, the Buccaneers, Jets and Lions each drafted a rookie QB in 09 that is their starter of the future, so they seem to be the leading candidates. And it seems the Browns need to grab one in 10 or wait until the next dacade to be a dynasty contenders.

 

Zombo

--Sam Bradford?

 

Nice post! I would have to go with the Browns of course and the Jets. One other thing that all of those dynasty's had in common was a great organizational structure, and great owners. I think we have those elements now and we are one draft away from putting the rest of the pieces in place.

[Gips]

This new upcoming decade will belong to THE CLEVELAND BROWNS!