NFL Dynasty-Building Made Easy

[Pounds]

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

Joe Cool was a superhero! In Walsh's iteration of the WCO, superior QB-play was fundamental. And, while Montana's athletic talents are debatable, his impact on that team is not. Without Montana, those 49er teams are the Bengals circa 1968-1975.

Tom Brady would backup Carson Palmer if drafted by Cincinnati.

Yeah, but Palmer gets injured or throws four INTs in a game and good ol' Tom Terrific unseeds him on the depth chart.

[Smoot Point Really]

Any questions?

Yeah... How does one build a dynasty?

The Patriots built a "dynasty" with a lot of luck in Tom Brady... They won 3 Super Bowls by less than 10 points total, mostly with last second kicks and with the help of a "tuck rule". People salivate over their franchise and its success, but outside of two seasons ago when they lost the Super Bowl the team was never truly dominant.

The key is having a solid coaching staff, getting a franchise QB, and getting lucky (more than not) in the draft over several consecutive years.

[Shilsu]

There's a popular quote that says something to the extent of, "Luck is what happens when opportunity meets preparation."

You make your own luck by giving yourself the odds to succeed.

[Smoot Point Really]

There's a popular quote that says something to the extent of, "Luck is what happens when opportunity meets preparation."

You make your own luck by giving yourself the odds to succeed.

Spare me...

They passed on Tom Brady 6 times before selecting him...

The people they picked prior to Brady?

round 2 - Adrian Klemm: Now with the Packers, played a total of 26 games over 5 years with the Patriots.

round 3 - JR Redmond: Out of the league. Played 23 games with the Patriots, started 5, 1 TD...

round 4 - Greg Randall: Out of the league. Played 35 games with the Patriots.

round 5 - Dave Stachelski: Out of the league. Played 9 games with the New Orleans Saints.

round 5 - Jeff Marriott: Out of the league. Never played. Don't even know his position. The NFL doesn't at least.

round 6 - Antwan Harris: Out of the league. Played 52 games with the Patriots over 5 seasons and started 2...

You want to tell me that they had this "great plan?" BS... The only guy in that entire draft who is still playing in the NFL (4 games in the last 2 years) is Patrick Pass (7th round).

[SkinsFTW]

There's a popular quote that says something to the extent of, "Luck is what happens when opportunity meets preparation."

You make your own luck by giving yourself the odds to succeed.

Right, and there is a lot more chances at luck with 8-10 picks a year, instead of 3-5 like we usually have. Also, all of our traded picks are for players who aren't around very long. Look at all the high rounders wasted on Jason Taylor, Mark Brunell, Duckett, Lloyd, Campbell and McIntosh trade ups, etc.

[Oldfan]

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

I saw him play. Grade B with all day to throw.

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 majority of fans seem to think short-term also. It seems to me that most fans over the seasons have applauded when the Skins added a big name player for a short-term fix. The latest is Jason Taylor.

[Neophyte]

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

Notice I said that I would put the Eagles on the list but and that "but" is a big one.

The Steelers are much harder to dismiss, I think. They have had one losing season this decade (6-10 in 2003) with 6 playoff births (9-4 record), two Super Bowls with one win and one pending, 4 Conference Championship games and regular season record of 94-49. Seems pretty dominate to me.

[Oldfan]

Good post, Oldfan... why would any team establish a long-range plan? What's the benefit? 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.

Thank you.

The commitment has to start with the owner so that he doesn't turn over GMs and coaches who don't win-now.

However, there's another point that I probably should have made in the OP... making decisions based on the long-term doesn't mean that it takes years to be a winner.

In today's NFL, two grade B teams can make it to the Super Bowl, so while long-range planning aims at becoming a grade A team over several seasons, a team has only to reach the grade B level to be a winner.

[Neophyte]

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 are kidding right? Right?

Walsh never won a SB without a HoF QB under center. Heck, he never made the SB without one under center.

Bart Starr played in a completely different era and was great for his day.

Tom Brady would have backed up Palmer right up until Palmer got hurt the first time and then Palmer would have been traded. Palmer is very good QB, maybe better than Brady as far as throwing the ball. He is not in Brady's league as a leader and as far as understanding the game.

Your example of Gibbs is the only relevant one on this list and he is so much the exception that he proves the rule.

[AKM311]

While I agree with your thoughts, it may sound simple, but it is not easy.

Reason being, it isn't just about the strategy, its about evaluation of talent. Unless you can identify the right players in the draft, neither strategy will work.

As far as FA, it is all about fitting the right player in our scheme. While the thinking is great, bottom line is it's all about talent evaluation. Otherwise no matter what a team does, they will suck with bad talent evaluation.

[Oldfan]

The Patriots built a "dynasty" with a lot of luck in Tom Brady...

Did they get lucky with Cassell also? You know Cassell's history -- and he comes in -- has the scheme adapted for him to learn on the fly -- and wins 11 games...one less than Brady averaged as a starter in his career.

Brady is overrated, now Cassell is overrated, in my opinion. I think ALL players are "system players." QBs on winners get too much credit; QBs on losers get too much blame.

[Oldfan]

Walsh never won a SB without a HoF QB under center. Heck, he never made the SB without one under center.

I think you have it backwards. His QBs wouldn't be HOF candidates had they played for anyone but Walsh.

Walsh's WCO was designed to get the most out of the mediocre talent he had on offense in Cincinnati. As I said in the OP, designing schemes for grade B talent is one of the keys in building a dynasty in today's NFL.

[Oldfan]

...it isn't just about the strategy, its about evaluation of talent. Unless you can identify the right players in the draft, neither strategy will work.

Well-designed schemes can win with grade B players -- which raises the draft and FA hit rates since those players are easier to find.

[AKM311]

Well-designed schemes can win with grade B players -- which raises the draft and FA hit rates since those players are easier to find.

What scheme's do you think can do this? Honestly, if were talking about the SB, I am not sure schemes can win it all without Grade A players.

Zona, Pitt, Steelers, Patriots, Giants, etc. all have grade A players in the area that carries the team.

[Neophyte]

I think you have it backwards. His QBs wouldn't be HOF candidates had they played for anyone but Walsh.

Walsh's WCO was designed to get the most out of the mediocre talent he had on offense in Cincinnati. As I said in the OP, designing schemes for grade B talent is one of the keys in building a dynasty in today's NFL.

Perhaps but if that were the case then there should be a lot more WCO (a term that bugs me seriously since it is wrong, btw.) in the HoF or headed there. Walsh may have created an offense that fit the talents of these guys but in the end analysis, these two guys are the best to ever play the position in the Walsh's system (excepting maybe Favre who I don't think has played in a pure Walsh system most of his career but rather a derivative tailored to his special skills).

While I think the right system can do wonders for a lesser talent, I don't think a lesser talent does so much above average for so long just because of the system. At some point, talent becomes a factor regardless of system.

[Oldfan]

Perhaps but if that were the case then there should be a lot more WCO (a term that bugs me seriously since it is wrong, btw.) in the HoF or headed there.

Montana had the advantage of doing it with Walsh at a time when the scheme was "innovative" -- giving defenses fits -- before cover two was invented to deal with it.

The Coryell scheme poplularized by Gibbs had the same advantages in the 80s. It has fallen out of favor today because high pressure defenses make it tough on those seven-step drops.

[MassSkinsFan]

Any questions?

When do you take over from Vinny?

[MassSkinsFan]

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

Yes, this is sad to read. If you believe in this 10-step program, we clearly have a dilemma in Step 1, namely that our Owner, despite his best intentions, has a history of involvement in personnel decisions that could perhaps have been best made by experienced football professionals.

I tend to agree with the article. These are things that should be done to effect change for the better, though the list is not all-inclusive, since it's referring to how to change the culture (not the schemes/systems).

[Oldfan]

When do you take over from Vinny?

I've been offering advice.

Vinny doesn't listen.

Joe was the same way.

[Oldfan]

I tend to agree with the article. These are things that should be done to effect change for the better, though the list is not all-inclusive, since it's referring to how to change the culture (not the schemes/systems).

I think you win first, THEN you change the culture.

[MassSkinsFan]

I think you win first, THEN you change the culture.

I think we established that you and I disagree on this point in another thread.

I don't necessarily see one coming before the other. I think they are somewhat correlated. It's rare that you have a crap team culture with a winner. I guess you're saying chicken, and it seems like I'm saying egg, but in fact I'm saying buffalo finger omelette.

When I read the article I immediately went back to see how much of it you'd dispute, but curiously I saw nothing. Hmmm...

I did enjoy your OP though and thought it had a lot of good points.

[Oldfan]

:)When I read the article I immediately went back to see how much of it you'd dispute, but curiously I saw nothing. Hmmm...

I didn't want to hijack my own thread.

[MoeRedskins]

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?

The Colts have been really good for a long time and the Steelers look to be good for some time, but they hit on the one thing that, no matter what your draft strategy is, you can't predict and that is hitting on your QB. A lot of good gms look better when they get a QB that is good. Pioli in NE is probably a good GM, but let's see what happens when he has to build a team around somebody who isn't Tom Brady.

Ozzie Newsome is the only GM in the NFL that I give total credit to. He built a powerhouse of a team with a revolving door at QB. Remember, the steelers were not that good before Ben. They were off and on, good one year, bad the next.

[bikie]

I think you have it backwards. His QBs wouldn't be HOF candidates had they played for anyone but Walsh.

Walsh's WCO was designed to get the most out of the mediocre talent he had on offense in Cincinnati. As I said in the OP, designing schemes for grade B talent is one of the keys in building a dynasty in today's NFL.

while I think it's obvious a good scheme will improve a team's chances of winning, finding the players who can run it under the pressure of the post season and improvise with it when it doesn't go according to plan (which will happen often in this league) is not going to happen with "B" quality players... to suggest montana was an average talent that is in the HOF due to the scheme is laughable and is like spelling your name wrong on a test: after that, nothing else you say really matters...

[Oldfan]

... to suggest montana was an average talent that is in the HOF due to the scheme is laughable and is like spelling your name wrong on a test: after that, nothing else you say really matters...

Grade B is above-average, not average. The mental side of the game is important, and Joe did that well. But, the number one factor in grading a QB is the talent to throw forward passes. I think Joe Montana would have been Joe Nobody playing for any other team of his time.