Building a dynasty with parity

[dalmog]

There have been several threads here and in the commentary section about how well the Phins have played, and how well they have been coached. One side argues that the dolphins record the last few seasons show them to be a consistently winning team. The other side argues that they haven't proven themselves to be elite, not coming up with wins against enough top teams or going far in the playoffs. Chaos ensues...

In one response to a comment about missing the days when the Dolphins regularly dominated the Division, one person argued that Parity was the point of the salary cap and that you can't blame the lack of consistent dominance on the teams themselves. [I'm sorry if this an inaccurate paraphrase, but it got me thinking anyway...]

I just want to know what people think about what a team can build, and how many years can a team hold it. Is it possible to regularly put a team on the field that for say 5-10 years wins most of the division championships and regularly shows a real chance at making it all the way, and even makes it a couple of times? What do you need for that? If so, which teams today are dominant dynasties? The Pats? The Eagles? The Titans? Miami for its W-L record? If not, what is the most a team can build and keep consistent for several years?

 

[AmishJihad]

The 49ers were a true dynasty in the 80's right up into the early 90's. Always a contender, and 5 Lombardi's to show for it.

If you are ready to call Miami a dynasty(:roflmao: ), then be prepared to call the late 80's and 90's Bills a dynasty (which I dont think they were, just an AFC powerhouse).

 

[phunwin]

There have been several threads here and in the commentary section about how well the Phins have played, and how well they have been coached. One side argues that the dolphins record the last few seasons show them to be a consistently winning team. The other side argues that they haven't proven themselves to be elite, not coming up with wins against enough top teams or going far in the playoffs. Chaos ensues...

In one response to a comment about missing the days when the Dolphins regularly dominated the Division, one person argued that Parity was the point of the salary cap and that you can't blame the lack of consistent dominance on the teams themselves. [I'm sorry if this an inaccurate paraphrase, but it got me thinking anyway...]

I just want to know what people think about what a team can build, and how many years can a team hold it. Is it possible to regularly put a team on the field that for say 5-10 years wins most of the division championships and regularly shows a real chance at making it all the way, and even makes it a couple of times? What do you need for that? If so, which teams today are dominant dynasties? The Pats? The Eagles? The Titans? Miami for its W-L record? If not, what is the most a team can build and keep consistent for several years?

The closest thing to a dynasty right now is the Patriots. 2 Super Bowl titles in 3 years, in the current parity-heavy NFL, is probably a dynasty, or as close as we'll get.

What do you have to do? If we look at the most recent "dynasty" (I put it in quotes not to insult the Patriots, but because I'm not sure whether they qualify for dynasty status or not; get back to me in a few years), it seems easy: lock up talented players at below-market prices, get their best years, and draft well enough to replace them when they leave for more money. This is exactly what New England and Philadelphia have done (for my money, these have been the two of the three most successful franchises of the last few years, TB is the other). Of course, that plan is easier said than done, like most Super Bowl winning plans.

The Cowboys and 49ers, during their big periods, spent like mad and said "to hell with the future cap problems, we want to win now". The Redskins tried that approach and you can see where it's gotten them.

The Rams won a Super Bowl with an out-of-this-world offense and just enough defense to get by. The Vikings failed miserably at that approach for years, as did Shula's Dolphins. The Ravens and Bucs did the reverse, an approach that has so far failed to deliver a Super Bowl to the Johnson/Wannstedt Phins.

In short, there's no single magic formula to win a Super Bowl, let alone to create a dynasty. It takes a combination of skill and luck, no matter who you are. I doubt there's a Super Bowl champion in history that hasn't had more than its share of good breaks along the way.

 

[inFINSible]

Luck is the new skill.

 

[inFINSible]

If you look at the things the Dolphins are doing, you would think that they are doing the right things. Keeping their own talent(to promote chemistry and unity) and bringing in quality individuals to supplement or replace lost talent (to promote smooth transition with "team" players) seem like good ideas. If you have a choice between a two guys who are equals in talent, then you would probably want the guy who is a team player, with a great attitude over a guy who doesn't measure up in that respect.

But, I think that this is also a place where a team can fall short.

Too many nice guys = a soft team.

 

[FlyingElvis]

Phunwin, good post.

it seems easy: lock up talented players at below-market prices, get their best years, and draft well enough to replace them when they leave for more money. This is exactly what New England and Philadelphia have done (for my money, these have been the two of the three most successful franchises of the last few years, TB is the other). Of course, that plan is easier said than done, like most Super Bowl winning plans.

Its good to see someone understand this concept. Rather than just try to explain their success as "luck" as though the law of averages somehow weigh heavily to the Pats side over a 3 year period. What looks like luck to a fan is more likely a player making a play. Mare missing a couple of field goals is NOT luck by the Patriots but rather a bonehead play by a kicker who perhaps lacks concentration on a big kick or at least on that afternoon. But I digress..

The Pats are building for a long term run. Not sure how many years that translates into, I have no idea. But they have just begun. 2001 was an aberration, they weren't suppose to win that year. Philly may well have a similar philosophy, I'm not sure. I don't see the evidence in TB however. That SB team has already been largely dismantled. It seems like it may have been a one year deal, like the Ravens of a few years ago. [EDIT: My bad. Re-read your post. You weren't suggesting TB uses the same philososphy.]

Anyway, with that said, I do not think the Pats are close to being a dynasty. I think dynasty is a pretty strong word that should be reserved for a handful of teams that dominated for a decade or so. Yankees, Celtics, Canadiens, Jordan's Bulls, Shaq's Lakers seemed headed there but, looks like that ended prematurely.

 

[Ohio Fanatic]

What looks like luck to a fan is more likely a player making a play. Mare missing a couple of field goals is NOT luck by the Patriots but rather a bonehead play by a kicker who perhaps lacks concentration on a big kick or at least on that afternoon.

I look back at the games the last 2 seasons and some of Mare's crucial missed kicks. A lot of it, see Patsies game, can be blamed on coaching. Mare has consistently showed every season/preseason that he has serious problems with accuracy when he's kicking off the infield dirt of Marlins diamond. And lo and behold, we lose at least one game a year because of this poor kicking off dirt issue. Wanny should've realized this early last season and been more aggressive rather than settle for field goals.

 

[FlyingElvis]

Wanny should've realized this early last season and been more aggressive rather than settle for field goals.

Yeah that. But here's a question. Do the Dolphins have a little dirt area at training camp so that Mare can kick a couple hundred balls off dirt in training camp? Its the little things...

 

[Phinadict]

I think that with all the changes that have happened with the league since the 80-90's, and the fact that it's hard to keep a group of players together for an extened period of time due to salary cap constraints, it places more of a premium and higher responsibility on front office to make sure they have a coach that can sell his plan to every memberof the team. With players chasing money rather than a team goal, it's no wonder that there haven't been any dominating teams for a while. The paradym has shifted from needing to retain a group of players (like out defense) to retaining a great coaching staff (like New England), and I don't see this changing any time soon.

 

[muscle979]

I don't think that Mare had a big problem up until last year with anything. He was previously up there with say Vinatieri as far as being reliable. He was one of the most accurate in the league for a while. I remember the 2002 Denver game he made the game winner in icy conditions. There have been more good kicks as well.

The missed field goal in the dirt wasn't his fault remember, it was blocked. The line was pushed back because of the dirt. If anybody needs to practice in the dirt its the line for FG attempts. The miss that was his fault was the OT miss, but that was in the grass.

 

[gordolphin]

I look back at the games the last 2 seasons and some of Mare's crucial missed kicks. A lot of it, see Patsies game, can be blamed on coaching. Mare has consistently showed every season/preseason that he has serious problems with accuracy when he's kicking off the infield dirt of Marlins diamond. And lo and behold, we lose at least one game a year because of this poor kicking off dirt issue. Wanny should've realized this early last season and been more aggressive rather than settle for field goals.

To be honest we never had a problem with Mare it was the other way around he was money, last year he had those misses , but we gotta be honest about it. I certainly don´t want to blame the season on Mare, because it´s just not true. Many things happened.

 

[Kencoboy]

Phunwin, good post.


Its good to see someone understand this concept. Rather than just try to explain their success as "luck" as though the law of averages somehow weigh heavily to the Pats side over a 3 year period. What looks like luck to a fan is more likely a player making a play. Mare missing a couple of field goals is NOT luck by the Patriots but rather a bonehead play by a kicker who perhaps lacks concentration on a big kick or at least on that afternoon.

Excellent point. The stinkin' Patsies may have seemed lucky, but from what I saw they took advantage of EVERY opportunity last year and that to me is way more than just luck, that equals good coaching. If the Dolphins would have taken advantage of their missed opportunities last year, Wanny wouldn't be on the hot seat, now would he??

 

[dropKickMurphy]

I think that with all the changes that have happened with the league since the 80-90's, and the fact that it's hard to keep a group of players together for an extened period of time due to salary cap constraints, it places more of a premium and higher responsibility on front office to make sure they have a coach that can sell his plan to every memberof the team. With players chasing money rather than a team goal, it's no wonder that there haven't been any dominating teams for a while. The paradym has shifted from needing to retain a group of players (like out defense) to retaining a great coaching staff (like New England), and I don't see this changing any time soon.

You're right on the money regarding the importance of the coaching staff.

One thing that's sometimes overlooked is that when a coach/gm has earned some job security (say, by winning a couple of Super Bowls), he then has the freedom to make moves that will strengthen the team in the long term.

For example, several times in the last 3 years, the Pats traded draft picks for higher picks in the next years draft. In 2003, they had 2 first round picks (as did the Jets). The Jets traded both picks to move up, and ended up with Dwane Robertson.
The Pats used one of the picks to take Ty Warren. The other they traded to Baltimore for a second rounder (ended up being Eugene Wilson) and a 2004 first round pick (Wilfork).

Give it time to pan out, but Warren Wilson and Wilfork , at this point, appear to be a better use of those 2 picks than Robertson.

The point is, there are many coaches and GMs around the league who would not be able to give up something in the short term for a greater value in the long term. Why? Because, being on the "hot seat", they feel that if they do not win immediately, they'll be gone. Hence, there would be no motivation for such a coach or GM to seek out deals that would only strengthen the team in future years.

That's what winning a couple of Super Bowls does for you. It buys you job security. By taking off the pressure to win - at any cost - immediately, it puts the team in a better position to strengthen itself for the future.

This ability to deal from strength has been a key to most sports dynasties. It always seemed like teams like the Cowboys, 49ers, and Celtics had a funny way of obtaining high draft picks to reload their teams. After all, there are always teams desperate to trade their future for a chance to win this year.

The Patriots are not yet a dynasty, but they have certainly shown they are willing and able to capitalize on their success to at least put themselves in a good position to continue that success.

 

[FlyingElvis]

Good post Murphy.

I remember the 49ers during their little run somehow getting in the top 10 of the 1st round. It made me sick. But not only do you need to get those picks, you need a Pioli type and a good scouting staff that will use them wisely.

 

[Jimi]

The Dolphins are POSED to run at a "dynasty of parity". By tht i mean by the looks of it, thtey could b contenders for more years to come. I love there strategy of having talent, but making sure u have young guys to polish. Our only guys over 30 on the team(other then backups and ST) have a replacment being polished right now. The only exception is we dont have a replacement for TBo. Tht should b adressed in next years draft/FA.