NFL Dynasty-Building Made Easy

[Oldfan]

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.

Example: The Coryell passing game is more dynamic than the WCO, but it's deep threat requires a better QB and better protection for its seven-step drops. Walsh's WCO was designed for backup Virgil Carter when Greg Cook was lost to injury. The 3 and 5 step drops made it easier for a mediocre O line to give protection.

The shotgun spread can be adapted to a WCO-like short-quick passing game. Both the Patriots and Colts use it heavily -- with enough deep throws to keep defenses honest.

[Smoot Point Really]

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.

How many playoff games has Cassel won? The difference between last year's Patriots and this year's Patriots was 5 games...

[jthor99]

I believe systems build dynastys. Atleast, thats how they start. There has to be principles that start from the top on how the organization is going to be ran. If everyone isn't on the same page then it isn't going to work.

I've always like to look at the Steelers and their bluneprint for success. They are patient and like to be consistant with their "system". I'm not sure if I would consider them a "dynasty" yet, but there certainly close (even more so with a victory Sunday).

To me, I'm not sure if any of us can exactly figure out what the Redskins "system" really is. I would lean more with the "win now" theory, which doesn't really seem to bring much success ask Jerry Jones he will tell you that.

Until this organization lays down a blueprint I'm not sure really sure how much better we will be. I believe Coach Gibbs was laying one down, but I'm not sure where that stands with him out of the picture.

[Warpath11]

I generally like the idea of drafting/acquiring players via the 'best fit for scheme' criteria like the Pats/Steelers/Ravens/Titans. That type of player acquisition model works for all positions EXCEPT the QB. Finding a franchise QB is luck more than anything and when you find one you have to lock that guy up for a long long time.

Steelers let Joey Porter walk and had a replacement in-house in Harrison. Soon they will be able to let the aging Larry Foote walk becuase they have groomed Timmons as an ILB (though he maybe better suited as an OLB)

Baltimore let Adalius Thomas walk and replaced him by moving Bart Scott inside due to the developent of Johnson as an OLB.

The pats let Samuel go becuase they had Ellis Hobbs and young Terrence Wheatly (and others) in-house that fit their scheme really well. Bruschi can soon go as well due to the development of Mayo.

There are many such examples...the only position you don't see this done with, yet, is the QB.

[twenty-eight]

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 Pittsburgh Steelers

:whoknows:

[Oldfan]

How many playoff games has Cassel won? The difference between last year's Patriots and this year's Patriots was 5 games...

By most people's standards, Cassel far exceeded expectations. Many now consider him a franchise QB. True or not?

[Oldfan]

IUntil this organization lays down a blueprint I'm not sure really sure how much better we will be. I believe Coach Gibbs was laying one down, but I'm not sure where that stands with him out of the picture.

From 2004 - 2006, nearly all the roster moves made in Gibbs Two were based on the win-now plan. After the 2006 season, when we went 5-11, that plan was modified, but the trade for Jason Taylor and the offer for Chad Johnson (confirmed by Marvin Lewis) are not long-term moves.

[Oldfan]

I generally like the idea of drafting/acquiring players via the 'best fit for scheme' criteria like the Pats/Steelers/Ravens/Titans. That type of player acquisition model works for all positions EXCEPT the QB. Finding a franchise QB is luck more than anything and when you find one you have to lock that guy up for a long long time.

The WCO and a shotgun spread combo, lots of quick, short tosses, could be run very effectively by a Chad Pennington or a Matt Cassell. You don't need an Elway.

[Pounds]

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.

I thought the two divergent approaches were mutually exclusive. I mean, I see what you're saying. As a grade B teams builds into a grade A team they can win along the way. It seems as though with choices, one only has a few. You can choose to win now, or wait and build to win later, but not both.

Sometimes decisions made in the name of the short-term approach run counter to the decisions one makes in the name of the long-term approach, i.e., drafting one player over another, contract terms, etc.

Perhaps it can be done, but multi-tasking on such a grand scale seems counterintuitive and, well, too difficult for the Vinny Cerratos of this world.

[Oldfan]

I thought the two divergent approaches were mutually exclusive.

They are.

I'm saying that every decision should be made for long-term benefit. However, one should not assume that the long-term approach requires a sacrifice because winning can happen pretty quickly. Even modest-but-solid long-term gains can put your team at the head of the pack.

Short-term thinking teams like the Redskins have been on a treadmill. Rather than draft a DE, they took P. Daniels in free agency. When he went down, rather than ride it out with what they had, they gave up draft picks for Jason Taylor. It's not hard to get an edge on the win-now teams.

I think the Skins have been making better decisions over the past couple of years. They backslid with the Taylor trade, but otherwise I've been on board with their roster moves.

[REDALERT]

I think we had the makings of being a Dynasty and have to be counted when it comes to building you're OL to win SB's.

Eventhough the knee jerk didn't mention Joe Gibbs in his article, Joe helped elevate the NFL when teams started to look at the importance of drafting massive, abusive OL to plow they're way to SB wins. And it certainly does takes luck to land a franchise QB, then you build around him. Unless you have QB's like Elway, Peyton, Marino and the likes stirring at you during the draft and your pick is up next. Other then that, drafting QB's and finding a real gem is a crap shoot. But if you find one, you surround him with massive OL that fit your scheme and you rock and roll for years to come. The Cowboys did it with Aikman, the Niners with Montana the Bronco's with Elway and Peyton is well protected.

But once you get that quality well rounded Offensive Line, it makes everone life alot easier. The Redskins won 3 SB's with 3 diffrent QB's, a change of the guard at RB and 1 stellar HOF WR Monk. So, IMO. Either you have one helluva OL, or 1 helluva QB. Some of the great QB's can have adequate OL, but the QB play makes everyone else life alot easier, see Tom Brady and the patriots.

Also, most dynasty teams had 1 good QB, 1 good or great WR, or one helluva OL that made everyone else look great. the niners had Rice, the Cowboys had Ervin, The Steelers had either Swann or Stallworth, the Colts got Harrison and the Patriots got Moss to almost make history. But some may beg the differ and say "well where's the RB? IMO, with the ingredients provided above (QB, OL, WR) makes the RB life alot easier. Unless you have a great RB playing with a below average OL and/or QB. More likely in this scenario the team will be average (see current Redskins). This of course is all related to the offense when it comes to building a dynasty. Fortunately, the Redskins Organization had 3 factors in winning SB's and trying to build a dynasty. That of course would be Joe Gibbs, the Hogs and Jack kent Cooke.

The bad news about our beloved dynasty from years ago is it was all years ago. I could probably go on, but what's the use. The Redskins entire foundation has broken down when it comes to building a dynasty and that's ever since Joe Gibbs retired the first go round, the hogs got old and Jack Kent Cooke past away. And those 3 factors alone are major ingredients for success in the NFL.

[Long-Time-Fan]

I do agree with the original post for this topic.

I do not agree by saying the Pats are a near Dynasty.

They did the very thing mentioned in the original post.

When Brady went down the plugged in another QB and still went 11-5

I don't hate the Pats and I wanted to see them beat the G-men.

I do however hate the fact that my team and not many others can play like that.

[Oldfan]

REDALERT -- I think we had the makings of being a Dynasty and have to be counted when it comes to building you're OL to win SB's. Eventhough the knee jerk didn't mention Joe Gibbs in his article, Joe helped elevate the NFL when teams started to look at the importance of drafting massive, abusive OL to plow they're way to SB wins.

I agree that a big, strong, dominant O line was a big factor in building some of the dynasties in the past. But, that approach won't work in today's game because the NFL rules aimed at parity make it virtually impossible to put such a line together and keep it together without ignoring the rest of the team.

[Oldfan]

I do agree with the original post for this topic.

I do not agree by saying the Pats are a near Dynasty.

They did the very thing mentioned in the original post.

I called the Patriots a "borderline dynasty" because the Colts have won only one less game since 2000. The Steelers and Eagles are eight or nine wins behind. There's very little difference between those teams.

[SkinsFTW]

There are many such examples...the only position you don't see this done with, yet, is the QB.

True, but San Diego got lucky with Rivers.

Too bad the Patriots didn't draft Todd Husak instead of Brady 3 spots earlier than us.

But would Brady still be in the league if the Redskins drafted him in the 6th round in 2000?

[REDALERT]

I agree that a big, strong, dominant O line was a big factor in building some of the dynasties in the past. But, that approach won't work in today's game because the NFL rules aimed at parity make it virtually impossible to put such a line together and keep it together without ignoring the rest of the team.

That's why you constantly add depth on both OL's and DL's to keep the rotation going if someone departs. This is why draft picks in today's NFL is so important and why you don't give them away for aging players. Most of the successful teams of today understand that and constantly win from drafting properly and keeping depth.

Joe Gibbs didn't really like the FA period and it was a factor in his first retirement once the team started getting older.

[MassSkinsFan]

I called the Patriots a "borderline dynasty" because the Colts have won only one less game since 2000. The Steelers and Eagles are eight or nine wins behind. There's very little difference between those teams.

Super Bowl Wins Since 2000:

Patriots - 3

Rams - 1

Ravens - 1

Bucs - 1

Steelers -1

Colts - 1

Giants - 1

I haven't gone back to look at records of all these teams, but I think I might as it should be interesting. The Eagles have not won a SB ever, so I'm not so sure I'd include them in the near-dynasty category. I'd also say that the Pats were dynastic in the early Oughts, but may be fading right now.

Perhaps we should look at what makes a dynasty as opposed to a near-dynasty. I realize this is a different era (as evidenced by the number of recent one-off SB winners), but I think of the perennial also-rans as near-dynasty teams: 70s Vikings, 80s Broncos and 90s Bills for example.

[Oldfan]

Super Bowl Wins Since 2000:

Patriots - 3

Rams - 1

Ravens - 1

Bucs - 1

Steelers -1

Colts - 1

Giants - 1

I haven't gone back to look at records of all these teams, but I think I might as it should be interesting. The Eagles have not won a SB ever, so I'm not so sure I'd include them in the near-dynasty category. I'd also say that the Pats were dynastic in the early Oughts, but may be fading right now.

Perhaps we should look at what makes a dynasty as opposed to a near-dynasty. I realize this is a different era (as evidenced by the number of recent one-off SB winners), but I think of the perennial also-rans as near-dynasty teams: 70s Vikings, 80s Broncos and 90s Bills for example.

Regular season wins since 2000 (average is 72)---

Patriots 102

Colts 101

Steelers 94

Eagles 92

Titans 83

Ravens 83

Giants 80

Skins 62

I think the dynasties of the past, Lombardi's Packers and the Steelers of the 70s, were more dominant than the Patriots; but maybe in this new era, we need to apply the label to teams that just lead the mediocre pack consistently.

[DCMONEY]

You may not build a dynasty but one way that teams stay consistently competitive to me is to build in the trenches. The Skins did it during the Championship runs during Gibbs 1.0. I know obtaining linemen are not so called sexy things to do especially in the draft but you can never be to deep in the trenches to me. :2cents::2cents::logo:

[jthor99]

From 2004 - 2006, nearly all the roster moves made in Gibbs Two were based on the win-now plan. After the 2006 season, when we went 5-11, that plan was modified, but the trade for Jason Taylor and the offer for Chad Johnson (confirmed by Marvin Lewis) are not long-term moves.

So the drafting of Sean Taylor, Chris Cooley, LaRon Landry, HB Blades is simply ignored? I see what your saying, but Gibbs drafted some "core redskins" which I believe is building a foundation for this football team.

[MassSkinsFan]

I think the dynasties of the past, Lombardi's Packers and the Steelers of the 70s, were more dominant than the Patriots; but maybe in this new era, we need to apply the label to teams that just lead the mediocre pack consistently.

Thanks for the numbers - it's depressing that we're 10 games below the average number of wins since 2000, though I suppose that's only 1.25 games worse than the average per season. Mediocrity - what a great thing!!! <sigh>

I was a bit surprised to see the Eagles and Titans, but based on regular season wins they do belong.

[Oldfan]

So the drafting of Sean Taylor, Chris Cooley, LaRon Landry, HB Blades is simply ignored? I see what your saying, but Gibbs drafted some "core redskins" which I believe is building a foundation for this football team.

Read the statement you quoted again. Landry and Blades were drafted in 2007. I said 2004 - 2006.

I used the word "nearly" which allows for a few exceptions. I think the 2004 - 2006 moves were mostly win-now which did not add nearly enough young, strong talent to the roster.

[Oldfan]

You may not build a dynasty but one way that teams stay consistently competitive to me is to build in the trenches. :

If you mean that a team should plan to build in the trenches first, I don't think that's possible unless a team is lucky enough to have a couple of drafts heavy in linemen when they decide to build.