NFL Dynasty-Building Made Easy

[Oldfan]

I think building and maintaining an NFL dynasty isn't as hard as it seems.

The NFL is a competition between 32 teams. Copying the common methods of the competition virtually guarantees mediocrity. Therefore, in order to beat the competition, contrarian strategies are called for.

Luck is a huge factor in a 16-game season, particularly with injuries to key players. Realizing that, most NFL teams have adopted a win-now approach just hoping to squeeze into the playoffs, catch some breaks with a healthy team, and make a run at the title.

The NFL can now be called a "win-now league." This win-now approach leads to short-range thinking. So, most NFL teams are thinking short-range. Therefore, long-range thinking will result in contrarian strategies -- and the simple standard for all NFL football decisions is:

Which of these options will prove best in the long run?

Here are some examples of short-range and long-range decision-making in the NFL:

Short-range planners will build their offenses around their grade A star players like QB Jay Cutler and hope they can keep them healthy. It's the quickest way to improve a team, but whenever they lose a star, they have to adjust their scheme on the fly.

Long-range planners will build a scheme that can run efficiently with grade B players like QB Chad Pennington who can be easily replaced-- thus assuring continuity in scheme. This doesn't mean, of course, that grade A talent can't be put to good use. It just means that it isn't required.

Short-range planners draft to fill their most pressing needs right away. Since need has nothing at all to do with talent evaluation, short-range planners hit for a poor average in the draft.

Since the schemes of long-range planners are designed to be effective with grade B talent, they draft the player with the highest grade who fits their scheme. If the player happens to have grade A talent, that's great, but it isn't required. Since QBs like Chad Pennington are not that hard to find, long-range planners have fewer misses in the draft when selecting QBs. The same is true for all the positions.

Long-range planners can take advantage of short-range planners in trades. Short-range planners will pay premium prices to move up in the draft, to trade next year's picks for this year's, and to trade their picks for veterans who can help them right away.

Once built, maintaining a dynasty requires staying the course. The "window of opportunity" theory is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Switching to short-range planning will close the perceived window.

See? It's easy. There's nothing to this business of building an NFL dynasty.

Any questions?

[BigRedskinDaddy]

Just one: outside of the Patriots -- and that arguably -- name another near- or actual dynasty in this league in the last 15 years. I don't believe they exist. It may just be semantics; perhaps you meant consistent winning teams?

[Oldfan]

Just one: outside of the Patriots -- and that arguably -- name another near- or actual dynasty in this league in the last 15 years. I don't believe they exist. It may just be semantics; perhaps you meant consistent winning teams?

Rather than quibble on semantics, I'll point out that because they are rarely seen doesn't mean it's impossible now to create a dynasty. This season is probably the NFL's wet dream -- mediocrity dominated across the board. The best teams are only a little above average. That leave the door open for one grade A team to dominate.

I think the days of dominating with talent are gone. If we get a dynasty in this era, it will be created by brainpower in the front office and with the coaching on the field. The Patriots have been a "borderline dynasty."

[BigRedskinDaddy]

Rather than quibble on semantics, I'll point out that because they are rarely seen doesn't mean it's impossible now to create a dynasty...

Nearly anything is possible, brother. It doesn't mean it's likely. Nor is it going to become any more so in the future. With the possible exception of the Pats, there hasn't been one in this league since the Pukes mini in the 90's and the Niners and Skins concurrent dynasties before that. The league and the salary cap have changed all that.

[Ghost of]

BRD

How is it arguable with the Patriots. Since 2001, they've won Three SBs (3 in what, 4 years) and then went to the AFC championship game in 2006 (arguably should have won) and then went undefeated in 2007 before losing (arguably would have been better served with losing late in the regular season so they could shake that psychological pressure) in the Super Bowl. Not one losing season in that time and missed the playoffs with an 11-5 record this year.

How is that ARGUABLY a dynasty? It's DEFINITELY a dynasty.

[BigRedskinDaddy]

BRD

How is it arguable with the Patriots. Since 2001, they've won Three SBs (3 in what, 4 years) and then went to the AFC championship game in 2006 (arguably should have won) and then went undefeated in 2007 before losing (arguably would have been better served with losing late in the regular season so they could shake that psychological pressure) in the Super Bowl. Not one losing season in that time and missed the playoffs with an 11-5 record this year.

How is that ARGUABLY a dynasty? It's DEFINITELY a dynasty.

Good point. It is...

I would just prefer not to credit it as such.

[Neophyte]

Maybe I have a looser definition of dynasty but I am thinking that Pittsburgh is probably in that range now with a second SB birth in 4 years. Indianapolis is close as well with the strangle hold they have had on the AFC South, break through in the SB a couple years ago and the number of consecutive seasons with double digit wins.

I would put the Eagles on the list too but they did not win the big one when given a chance and I think you have to be a league champ at least once to get consideration.

I mean, how many of us would be thrilled today to have the nearly constant success of these 3 teams over the last decade? All of them (along with the Pats) have shown that building long term is their priority.

[Oldfan]

Maybe I have a looser definition of dynasty but I thinking that Pittsburgh is probably in that range now with a second SB birth in 4 years. Indianapolis is close as well with the strangle hold they have had on the AFC South, break through in the SB a couple years ago and the number of consecutive seasons with double digit wins.

I would put the Eagles on the list too but they did not win the big one when given a chance and I think you have to be a league champ at least once to get consideration.

The Eagles and Steelers? I think that's really stretching the "dynasty" label.

[[[ghost]]]

Just one: outside of the Patriots -- and that arguably -- name another near- or actual dynasty in this league in the last 15 years. I don't believe they exist. It may just be semantics; perhaps you meant consistent winning teams?

I think he misused the word Dynasty.

In short, he's trying to say that in order to build a team that consistently wins, you need to consistently draft players who pan out, so as to ensure young, cheap talent on your team.

The BPA is almost always a guarantee for success at the position, but of course, BPA often doesn't address a need. As such, you'll often have positions on your team that are extraordinarily strong, and have positions that are generally weak. Your hope is that the superiority of one position will mask or overcome the deficiency at another.

Furthermore, Oldfan is suggesting that, in addition to draft Quality players for success despite the potentiality to leave holes on your team, you need to have a scheme that can work around star players. He uses Chad Pennington and Jay Cutler as prime examples. He says that, naturally, you'd want Jay Cutler, but its much better to have a well thought out scheme that can make do with Pennington, despite the difference in skill.

[Skins PR]

Oldfan... May I venture a guess and say that you were either in real estate or are a current / former youth football coach?

[Oldfan]

Oldfan... May I venture a guess and say that you were either in real estate or are a current / former youth football coach?

I did a couple of stints as father and grandfather coaching at the youth level in football, basketball and baseball.

[Om]

It's true, it is easy to build an NFL dynasty.

First, land yourself an all-time great QB.

Then, build competently around him.

Voila.

[Oldfan]

It's true, it is easy to build an NFL dynasty.

First, land yourself an all-time great QB.

Then, build competently around him.

Voila.

I see your plan is growing in complexity.

You added the word "competently.":D

[bikie]

nfl.com has an interesting article written by Pat Kirwan on "The 10-step program to building a championship culture".

Is a good read but as a redskins fan, seeing what he has listed as the first step is rather unnerving.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d80e57f03&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true&icampaign=SB43_3column_Sun_1

[Om]

I see your plan is growing in complexity.

You added the word "competently.":D

Nope. Same as it ever was.

[Stormy]

It's true, it is easy to build an NFL dynasty.

First, land yourself an all-time great QB.

Then, build competently around him.

Voila.

I don't know, Pittsburgh is likely prepared to win it's second title in 4 years with a guy who has an 80+QB rating. And, I'd wager they are likely to be in the thick of the hunt again next year, regardless of whether Big Ben posts an 85 or 100QB rating.

[Skins PR]

nfl.com has an interesting article written by Pat Kirwan on "The 10-step program to building a championship culture".

Is a good read but as a redskins fan, seeing what he has listed as the first step is rather unnerving.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d80e57f03&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true&icampaign=SB43_3column_Sun_1

Step 1 is that you need a competent owner!?!?!? OH NO!!!

We're screwed.

[Om]

Stormy,

Big Ben isn't a guy to judge by his QB rating. The man ain't always pretty, but he's tough as nails, at his best in the clutch, and his teammates play their asses off for him. Maybe it isn't coincidence that the fact the Steelers are likely to win their second title in four years happens to coincide with the four years since they drafted their current QB?

[Ghost of]

I don't know, Pittsburgh is likely prepared to win it's second title in 4 years with a guy who has an 80+QB rating. And, I'd wager they are likely to be in the thick of the hunt again next year, regardless of whether Big Ben posts an 85 or 100QB rating.

Not all QBs play the same. Big Ben is imperfect but he IS a franchise QB.

[IWANTOBEGM]

There isn't one solution....luck is a huge factor, additionally the player under center must be effective but QB isn't the only answer (see Drew Brees not playing in a playoff game in N.O.)

[Stormy]

Stormy,

Big Ben isn't a guy to judge by his QB rating. The man ain't always pretty, but he's tough as nails, at his best in the clutch, and his teammates play their asses off for him. Maybe it isn't coincidence that the fact the Steelers are likely to win their second title in four years happens to coincide with the four years since they drafted their current QB?

I don't disagree with any of that, or with Ghost either. I mistook your definition of 'elite' to refer to purely those who posted olympian counting statistics at the QB position. I do think that the Steelers franchise demonstrates that consistent dominance can orginate somewhere else than with QB play. They have a whole legion of guys who fit that description of tough as nails big game performers though. It's in their organizational DNA, apparently.

[BigRedskinDaddy]

It's true, it is easy to build an NFL dynasty.

First, land yourself an all-time great QB.

Then, build competently around him.

Voila.

I just hope the Dan and Vinny C. aren't walking around Redskins Park right now going, "Shoot! I KNEW we forgot something!"

[Oldfan]

There isn't one solution....luck is a huge factor, additionally the player under center must be effective but QB isn't the only answer (see Drew Brees not playing in a playoff game in N.O.)

I agree.

Bill Walsh built a dynasty that didn't require a superhero at QB.

Joe Gibbs got three rings with the O line as his strongest unit.

Bart Starr wasn't super for Lombardi.

Tom Brady would backup Carson Palmer if drafted by Cincinnati.

You have to weigh it all: offense, defense, special teams, coaching. The best team usually wins, but luck is a big factor in a 16-game season and bigger in the playoffs.

[SkinsFTW]

Bart Starr wasn't super for Lombardi.

Only the best post season QB in NFL history. Bart Starr is just underrated.

And this thread is pretty much what people have been saying for years now. Why don't we build a team like the Eagles, Patriots and Steelers do?

The past decade those have been the successful teams and they build very similarly, while us, Denver, Dallas, Cleveland, Oakland all go the totally disorganized route.

[Pounds]

I think the days of dominating with talent are gone. If we get a dynasty in this era, it will be created by brainpower in the front office and with the coaching on the field. The Patriots have been a "borderline dynasty."

Good post, Oldfan and I think you are spot-on with what you said above. Any dynasty here forth will dominate through fiscal responsibility and "bargain hunting". The Redskins with all of their lessons learned rhetoric are the very definition of short-range planners. Personally, I don't like that approach, but can hardly fault them for it.

But I do have a question for you, why would any team establish a long-range plan? What's the benefit? The NFL so obviously rewards the short-range planning teams; the Arizona Cardinals of this world.

Look at the Steelers. Without building a dynasty, they have now appeared in something like two out of the last four Super Bowls. They are year-to-year the NFL's most consistent operation.

With the regularity in turnover with regards to management (i.e., head coaches, GMs, etc), I would argue that the long-range plan is a luxury most personnel officials are not afforded. It takes someone with a proven track record, clout and staying power to establish and execute a long-range plan.