NFL Nostalgia: A Look Back at the 2008 Season

As we get set to usher in the 2009-2010 NFL season, I want to take a moment to reflect on some of the finest moments of last year’s season.
As football fans, we often forget the peculiarities that define any one given season once it is over. Normally, there isn’t much to speak of, but last year was a cut above the rest. Last year was in a class of its own, defining records, providing mesmerizing finishes, and on occasion, affording us eye-opening jaw-dropping stories that will always be a part of the team’s history.
Some of these things mentioned will be adored, like the Steelers winning yet another Super bowl while some things are better left forgotten like the 0-16 you-know-whos.
For those of you who don’t know who, it was the Lions—the same team to go undefeated in the preseason!
So come take a walk with me down memory lane. Let us recap some of the NFL firsts, some of the team records set, and some of the oddest occurrences

Seahawks History: Will This Year’s Team Be Better Than the 2005 Version?

If you ask real Seahawks fans, they will tell you that 2005 was by far the best season in Seahawks history. One main reason was their trip to SB XL.

Now unlike the Arizona Cardinals this season, the Seahawks earned a spot in the Super Bowl. The Seahawks were great on both sides of the football, having a very explosive offense and a stone-wall defense.

Now if you watched the first four games of the Seahawks’ 05 season, you would have thought that they were definitely not going to be in the Super Bowl or make the playoffs.

The Seahawks started out going 2-2, with wins against Jim Mora’s Falcons and the Arizona Cardinals. They suffered losses to Jacksonville in Week 1 and Washington in Week 4.

But after that they took off, winning their next 11 straight games, and as one former Seahawk put it, “we have developed a fear of losing.” Well, let’s look at how the Seahawks won 11 straight games.

Week 5 vs. St Louis (37-31): Hasselbeck had 316 yards passing and two touchdown passes with zero interceptions. Bulger had 336 yards passing, two touchdown passes and one interception.

The difference in this shot out was the running game. The Seahawks and 2005 MVP Shaun Alexander was the better running back over Steven Jackson. Alexander ran for 116 yards at two touchdowns. Jackson ran for 77 yards and only one touchdown. So in 2005, the Seahawks had a balanced offensive attack.

Week 6 vs. Houston (42-10): Week 6 was completely different than the previous week: it was the Shaun Alexander show. Matt Hasselbeck only had 168 yards passing and one touchdown and one interception. David Carr, on the other hand actually did better than Hasselbeck, throwing for 179 yards and one touchdown, but he didn’t throw an interception.

However, where the Seahawks got the majority of their points was via the great one himself, Shaun Alexander. He ran for 141 yards and four touchdowns. Not too shabby but that’s exactly why Alexander won the NFL MVP.

Week 7 vs. Dallas (13-10): This was the least amount of points scored in one game for the Seahawks in 2005 with 13. Drew Bledsoe and Matt Hasselbeck both had one touchdown pass and two interceptions. However, Hasselbeck did have more yards passing with 224 yards, Bledsoe only had 136 yards.

But the most important thing in the game for the Seahawks was when Hasselbeck converted on his only touchdown pass to TE Ryan Hannam to seal the victory for the Seahawks, they also had a field goal that allowed them to get 10 points in the fourth quarter. The Cowboys only had a lone field goal, which wasn’t enough to get the win.

Week 9 at Arizona (33-19): Coming off their bye week, it was going to be interesting if the Seahawks would keep it up, and they completely did. Kurt Warner completely outthrew Matt Hasselbeck. Warner passed for 334 yards and had one touchdown, the big thing was that Warner had three interceptions. Compared to Hasselbeck who threw for 162 yards and one touchdown, but Hasselbeck didn’t throw any interceptions.

Once again, “The Great One” led the Hawks to another victory.  Alexander ran for 173 yards and two touchdowns compared to the trio of Cardinals running backs (J.J. Arrington, Marcel Shipp, Larry Fitzgerald (end around) and Obafemi Ayanbadejo) combine could not get over 100 yards. They got 71 yards rushing combined.

Week 10 vs St. Louis (31-16): Once again, the opposing QB outthrew Matt Hasselbeck. In this case it was Marc Bulger. Bulger threw for 304 yards and had one touchdown pass and one interception. Hasselbeck had a below-par outcome, throwing for 243 yards, one touchdown and two interceptions.

So once again, the Seahawks relied on RB Shaun Alexander, and once again, he came through. Alexander ran for 165 yards and three touchdowns. Alexander was the Seahawks main source on offense.

Week 11 at San Francisco (27-25): For the third straight week, the opposing quarterback outthrew Matt Hasselbeck, but this time it wasn’t as bad. Ken Dorsey threw for 249 yards and one touchdown and zero interceptions. Hasselbeck had 233 yards passing, one touchdown and zero interceptions, almost the same as Dorsey with just a tad bit less yards.

So now I ask you, who is going to lead this team to another win? Shaun Alexander. Alexander rushed for 115 yards and two touchdowns, compared to the 49ers running back Maurice Hicks, who had 83 yards and one touchdown. So yet again, Alexander wins it for the Seahawks.

Week 12 vs New York Giants (24-21): For the fourth straight week, Matt Hasselbeck was outthrown by the opposing QB. This time it was Eli Manning, who threw for 344 yards, two touchdowns and one interception.

Hasselbeck, on the other hand, threw for 249 yards, two touchdowns and one interception. So they had the same TD and INT amount but Manning threw for way more yards.

For once this season, the opposing running back rushed for more yards than Alexander, and that RB was Tiki Barber. However, Alexander had one touchdown and Barber did not record a touchdown. So this time, Hasselbeck and the Seahawks defense led them to a win.

Week 13 at Philadelphia (42-0): Coming into this Monday night game, a lot of people thought it would be a great, high-scoring game but that the Eagles would win. That was clearly not the case. The Seahawks offense scored 35 points in the first quarter. Matt Hasselbeck and the Seahawks offense didn’t have to do anything because the defense led by Lofa Tatupu recorded four interceptions. That’s all they needed.

Week 14 vs. San Francisco (41-3): For the second straight week, Matt Hasselbeck and the Seahawks defense led them to 11-2 record at the time. Matt threw for 226 yards, four touchdowns and one interception. But the Seahawks defense, for the second straight week came up big allowing only eight first downs to the Seahawks 31.

Week 15 at Tennessee (28-24): Matt Hasselbeck really stepped up, throwing for 285 yards with three touchdowns and zero interceptions. Opposing QB Steve McNair threw for 310 yards but only two touchdowns and zero interceptions.

So once again, it was up to SA to earn the MVP award, and he did by rushing for 172 yards and one lone touchdown. That’s all that was needed for the Seahawks to get their 10th straight win.

Week 16 vs. Indianapolis (28-13): In what really was a Payton Manning-less game Matt Hasselbeck and Shaun Alexander led the Seahawks. Matt threw for 168 yards and two touchdowns. Alexander added 139 yards rushing and two touchdowns. That’s all that was needed to win their 11th straight game.

The Seahawks lost 23-17 in week 17 to the Green Bay Packers which snapped their 11-game winning streak.

Let’s look at the tail of the two Seahawks teams. The 2005 Super Bowl team and the 2009 fired up and aiming for a Super Bowl team.

In 2005 the Seahawks had QB Matt Hasselbeck (still here in 2009), RB Shaun Alexander (now replaced by Julius Jones), WR’s Joe Jurevicius and Darryl Jackson and TE Jeremy Stevens on offence. They scored 452 points in 2005.

For 2009 the Seahawks will have QB Matt Hasselbeck, RB Julius Jones (OC Greg Knapp will make him great), WR’s T.J Houshmandzadeh, Deion Branch and Nate Burleson and TE John Carlson.

Comparing the two offences, it looks like the 2009 offence should be better. Mostly because they have a lot better WR’s and a great TE in John Carlson. And who knows maybe offensive coordinator Greg Knapp will make Julius Jones the next Shaun Alexander, I think we all would love that.

In 2005 the Seahawks had DE Grant Winstrom, Lofa Tatupu, Leroy Hill, Marcus Trufant, Andre Dyson and Michael Boulware as the key players on defense.

For 2009 the Seahawks will have DE Patrick Kerney, Tatupu, Hill, Curry, Trufant, Lucas, Grant and possibly Mebane.

Comparing the two defenses, if the trio of LB’s in Hill, Curry and Tatupu all do great and the defense stays completely healthy, then I think that the 2009 defense will be better. But its more of a “can they stay healthy.”

In 2005, the Seahawks head coach was future HOF Mike Holmgren who was more of a dictator and a “bend but not break” team. While in 2009 the Seahawks head coach is Jim Mora, who has learned from Holmgren the past two season. Mora is more of a players coach and a aggressive type of coach.

I have to much respect for Mike Holmgren to say that Mora is the better coach. Sense this is his first season as the head coach, the Seahawks will have to prove that they can play Mora’s style of play.

I think they will but Mora has some big shoes to fill from Holmgren, who spent 10 seasons in Seattle and led them to their only Super Bowl. I think Mora has the chance if everything goes right to lead Seattle to their second Super Bowl this season.

But they are going to have to earn it.

Seahawks History: Will This Year’s Team Be Better Than the 2005 Version?

If you ask real Seahawks fans, they will tell you that 2005 was by far the best season in Seahawks history. One main reason was their trip to SB XL.

Now unlike the Arizona Cardinals this season, the Seahawks earned a spot in the Super Bowl. The Seahawks were great on both sides of the football, having a very explosive offense and a stone-wall defense.

Now if you watched the first four games of the Seahawks’ 05 season, you would have thought that they were definitely not going to be in the Super Bowl or make the playoffs.

The Seahawks started out going 2-2, with wins against Jim Mora’s Falcons and the Arizona Cardinals. They suffered losses to Jacksonville in Week 1 and Washington in Week 4.

But after that they took off, winning their next 11 straight games, and as one former Seahawk put it, “we have developed a fear of losing.” Well, let’s look at how the Seahawks won 11 straight games.

Week 5 vs. St Louis (37-31): Hasselbeck had 316 yards passing and two touchdown passes with zero interceptions. Bulger had 336 yards passing, two touchdown passes and one interception.

The difference in this shot out was the running game. The Seahawks and 2005 MVP Shaun Alexander was the better running back over Steven Jackson. Alexander ran for 116 yards at two touchdowns. Jackson ran for 77 yards and only one touchdown. So in 2005, the Seahawks had a balanced offensive attack.

Week 6 vs. Houston (42-10): Week 6 was completely different than the previous week: it was the Shaun Alexander show. Matt Hasselbeck only had 168 yards passing and one touchdown and one interception. David Carr, on the other hand actually did better than Hasselbeck, throwing for 179 yards and one touchdown, but he didn’t throw an interception.

However, where the Seahawks got the majority of their points was via the great one himself, Shaun Alexander. He ran for 141 yards and four touchdowns. Not too shabby but that’s exactly why Alexander won the NFL MVP.

Week 7 vs. Dallas (13-10): This was the least amount of points scored in one game for the Seahawks in 2005 with 13. Drew Bledsoe and Matt Hasselbeck both had one touchdown pass and two interceptions. However, Hasselbeck did have more yards passing with 224 yards, Bledsoe only had 136 yards.

But the most important thing in the game for the Seahawks was when Hasselbeck converted on his only touchdown pass to TE Ryan Hannam to seal the victory for the Seahawks, they also had a field goal that allowed them to get 10 points in the fourth quarter. The Cowboys only had a lone field goal, which wasn’t enough to get the win.

Week 9 at Arizona (33-19): Coming off their bye week, it was going to be interesting if the Seahawks would keep it up, and they completely did. Kurt Warner completely outthrew Matt Hasselbeck. Warner passed for 334 yards and had one touchdown, the big thing was that Warner had three interceptions. Compared to Hasselbeck who threw for 162 yards and one touchdown, but Hasselbeck didn’t throw any interceptions.

Once again, “The Great One” led the Hawks to another victory.  Alexander ran for 173 yards and two touchdowns compared to the trio of Cardinals running backs (J.J. Arrington, Marcel Shipp, Larry Fitzgerald (end around) and Obafemi Ayanbadejo) combine could not get over 100 yards. They got 71 yards rushing combined.

Week 10 vs St. Louis (31-16): Once again, the opposing QB outthrew Matt Hasselbeck. In this case it was Marc Bulger. Bulger threw for 304 yards and had one touchdown pass and one interception. Hasselbeck had a below-par outcome, throwing for 243 yards, one touchdown and two interceptions.

So once again, the Seahawks relied on RB Shaun Alexander, and once again, he came through. Alexander ran for 165 yards and three touchdowns. Alexander was the Seahawks main source on offense.

Week 11 at San Francisco (27-25): For the third straight week, the opposing quarterback outthrew Matt Hasselbeck, but this time it wasn’t as bad. Ken Dorsey threw for 249 yards and one touchdown and zero interceptions. Hasselbeck had 233 yards passing, one touchdown and zero interceptions, almost the same as Dorsey with just a tad bit less yards.

So now I ask you, who is going to lead this team to another win? Shaun Alexander. Alexander rushed for 115 yards and two touchdowns, compared to the 49ers running back Maurice Hicks, who had 83 yards and one touchdown. So yet again, Alexander wins it for the Seahawks.

Week 12 vs New York Giants (24-21): For the fourth straight week, Matt Hasselbeck was outthrown by the opposing QB. This time it was Eli Manning, who threw for 344 yards, two touchdowns and one interception.

Hasselbeck, on the other hand, threw for 249 yards, two touchdowns and one interception. So they had the same TD and INT amount but Manning threw for way more yards.

For once this season, the opposing running back rushed for more yards than Alexander, and that RB was Tiki Barber. However, Alexander had one touchdown and Barber did not record a touchdown. So this time, Hasselbeck and the Seahawks defense led them to a win.

Week 13 at Philadelphia (42-0): Coming into this Monday night game, a lot of people thought it would be a great, high-scoring game but that the Eagles would win. That was clearly not the case. The Seahawks offense scored 35 points in the first quarter. Matt Hasselbeck and the Seahawks offense didn’t have to do anything because the defense led by Lofa Tatupu recorded four interceptions. That’s all they needed.

Week 14 vs. San Francisco (41-3): For the second straight week, Matt Hasselbeck and the Seahawks defense led them to 11-2 record at the time. Matt threw for 226 yards, four touchdowns and one interception. But the Seahawks defense, for the second straight week came up big allowing only eight first downs to the Seahawks 31.

Week 15 at Tennessee (28-24): Matt Hasselbeck really stepped up, throwing for 285 yards with three touchdowns and zero interceptions. Opposing QB Steve McNair threw for 310 yards but only two touchdowns and zero interceptions.

So once again, it was up to SA to earn the MVP award, and he did by rushing for 172 yards and one lone touchdown. That’s all that was needed for the Seahawks to get their 10th straight win.

Week 16 vs. Indianapolis (28-13): In what really was a Payton Manning-less game Matt Hasselbeck and Shaun Alexander led the Seahawks. Matt threw for 168 yards and two touchdowns. Alexander added 139 yards rushing and two touchdowns. That’s all that was needed to win their 11th straight game.

The Seahawks lost 23-17 in week 17 to the Green Bay Packers which snapped their 11-game winning streak.

Let’s look at the tail of the two Seahawks teams. The 2005 Super Bowl team and the 2009 fired up and aiming for a Super Bowl team.

In 2005 the Seahawks had QB Matt Hasselbeck (still here in 2009), RB Shaun Alexander (now replaced by Julius Jones), WR’s Joe Jurevicius and Darryl Jackson and TE Jeremy Stevens on offence. They scored 452 points in 2005.

For 2009 the Seahawks will have QB Matt Hasselbeck, RB Julius Jones (OC Greg Knapp will make him great), WR’s T.J Houshmandzadeh, Deion Branch and Nate Burleson and TE John Carlson.

Comparing the two offences, it looks like the 2009 offence should be better. Mostly because they have a lot better WR’s and a great TE in John Carlson. And who knows maybe offensive coordinator Greg Knapp will make Julius Jones the next Shaun Alexander, I think we all would love that.

In 2005 the Seahawks had DE Grant Winstrom, Lofa Tatupu, Leroy Hill, Marcus Trufant, Andre Dyson and Michael Boulware as the key players on defense.

For 2009 the Seahawks will have DE Patrick Kerney, Tatupu, Hill, Curry, Trufant, Lucas, Grant and possibly Mebane.

Comparing the two defenses, if the trio of LB’s in Hill, Curry and Tatupu all do great and the defense stays completely healthy, then I think that the 2009 defense will be better. But its more of a “can they stay healthy.”

In 2005, the Seahawks head coach was future HOF Mike Holmgren who was more of a dictator and a “bend but not break” team. While in 2009 the Seahawks head coach is Jim Mora, who has learned from Holmgren the past two season. Mora is more of a players coach and a aggressive type of coach.

I have to much respect for Mike Holmgren to say that Mora is the better coach. Sense this is his first season as the head coach, the Seahawks will have to prove that they can play Mora’s style of play.

I think they will but Mora has some big shoes to fill from Holmgren, who spent 10 seasons in Seattle and led them to their only Super Bowl. I think Mora has the chance if everything goes right to lead Seattle to their second Super Bowl this season.

But they are going to have to earn it.

Main Players In The Favre Saga Operate Under Selfish Motivations

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

The Minnesota Vikings have toyed with my emotions for a couple of decades now.  Heart-breaking losses and fan girl scream inducing wins encompass the roller coaster ride I signed up for when I pledged my allegiance to the purple and gold.  The latest episode of As the Aging Quarterback Retires, er Un-retires, is no different.

I overheard some guys on the ‘L’ talking about the Favre situation.  One of the men said Brad Childress is “fearless” for putting his faith in Brett Favre to resurrect Minnesota’s passing game.  At that moment I felt like tapping him on the shoulder to correct him.  “Excuse me, sir.  I believe the word you were looking for was idiotic.  Childress is idiotic for thinking Favre is the solution to his problems.”

Unfortunately, Childress, aka Clueless, has failed to live up to the offensive guru status that was touted three years ago.   And now he’s hell bent on signing Favre in an attempt to salvage anything that might be left of his reputation. 

I haven’t decided who I blame more for Favregeddon.  Childress has his future to think about.  If he has any shot of securing another job after Zygi throws him to the curb, he needs to show that he is capable of constructing a passing game that doesn’t resemble a schizophrenic throwing downfield to a wide receiver that only he can see. 

Favre has his ego to worry about. This is just another act in the long line of Oscar-worthy displays he’s given in the past. Obviously the guy has a few more weepy-eyed performances to give for the camera and his legion of minions at ESPN. Not to mention the temper tantrums for non-existent penalties to throw for the refs. 

 

Is Favre really going to be satisfied after one or two years in Minnesota?  At some point he needs to take a step back to reflect on his past accomplishments, and then accept that maybe it is over.

 

The media has played its own part in stirring the frenzy.  Camping out at Winter Park and the airport in Hattiesburg, Miss. are not the actions of a rational person.  Reporters are jumping at the latest gossip from the mysterious “source” feeding the latest contract status and home purchase all in an effort to boost ratings.  I wouldn’t be surprised if the “source” turns out to be Favre himself, afraid that the spotlight will move onto someone else if he doesn’t fuel the fire.

 

The Vikings’ roster is filled with Super Bowl caliber talent, and yet they never look as good as they do on paper.  The defense and running game have the ability to dominate every opponent, while the offensive line always looks like it could use a little extra practice. 

The quarterback is obviously the main obstacle in the Vikings’ path past the first round of the playoffs.  But I’d rather see them focus on re-signing Antoine Winfield and bringing in players that will still have an impact a few years down the road.  That is if any player other than TO is willing to play in the circus-like atmosphere that’s been created. 

Will adding a 39-year-old quarterback who is past his prime take the team to the next level?  I’m not convinced that Favre is even a short-term solution to their quarterback problem.

Despite the vomit-inducing effect Favre’s face has on my body, I won’t hold it against the rest of the team.  I still plan on being seated (or more likely standing) in section 117 at every game.  I’ll cheer when they do something semi competent, boo when Favre does anything, and cry when they crush my soul by losing a game they entered as 28-point favorites. 

I’m not as pessimistic as my mother likes to think.  To prove it, I now live my life by a new motto that I heard:  May your troubles last as long as Brett Favre’s retirements.

 

Are the Steelers the NFL’s Only Perpetual Dynasty?

With all of the recent talk about the NFL Team of the Decade (a year early), I thought it would be fun to start a new discussion as to what team could be considered the NFL’s only perpetual dynasty.

There’s current talk about the Steelers potentially being on the cusp of a second dynasty, if it already isn’t. I would argue that the Steelers dynasty of the 70s may have never really ended, and they are the NFL’s only “perpetual” dynasty (since the AFL-NFL merger in 1970).

A dynasty is literally defined as “a succession of rulers of the same line of descent,” or “a powerful group or family that maintains its position for a considerable time.”   There is no formal definition for a “sports dynasty” however, and the definition is often left up to speculation and debate by sports fans. 

A sports dynasty is generally considered to be a team that dominates their sport for multiple seasons or years. It has a beginning and an end. While the beginning or end may not be a pinpoint in time, the dynasty does fit within a space of time.

Many argue a sports dynasty must be highlighted by championships. Others believe titles aren’t necessarily required so long as the team remains dominant in regular season wins over time.

Current debates regarding the Steelers, Patriots, and Colts in the team of the decade discussion even focus on the number of AFCCG appearances.

Using these definitions, we can point to the obvious NFL dynasties—the Steelers of the 70s, the 49ers and Redskins of the 80s, the Cowboys and Bills (yes the Bills) of the 90s, and the Patriots of this decade.

What if you consider them all together – Wins, titles, and Championship game appearances – since 1970?

If you make this consideration, you can pinpoint one and only one candidate for the NFL’s only perpetual dynasty—the Pittsburgh Steelers.

The Pittsburgh Steelers

• 1970s:

• 99-44 Losses (.692)
• 8 Playoff Appearances
• 5 AFC Championship Game Appearances
• 4 Super Bowl Titles

• 1980s:

• 77-75 (.507)
• 4 Playoff Appearances
• 1 AFC Championship Game appearance

• 1990s:

• 93-67 (.581)
• 6 Playoff Appearances
• 3 AFC Championship Game Appearances
• 1 Super Bowl appearance

• 00 Decade (to date):

• 94-49 Losses (.657)
• 6 Playoff Appearances
• 4 AFC Championship Game Appearances
• 2 Super Bowl Titles

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

As compared to the other dynasties, was there ever really a finite end of the Steelers 70s dynasty?  If you consider wins, playoff appearances, championship games, and Super Bowl visits and titles, there’s a strong argument to be made that Pittsburgh never left the dynasty dance floor.

The obvious argument against the Steelers in this discussion is the decade of the 1980s.  While obviously the most difficult in the past 40 years for the Steelers, it was still well above par by NFL standards. It was a decade with a positive winning percentage (.507), the Steelers still made the playoffs 40% of the time, and made a trip to the AFC Championship Game.

Did the Steelers “dynasty” truly disappear, and is there a finite end to their dynasty as you saw with the other dynasties?  It does not appear there is.  There is no decade where the Steelers played sub-.500 football.  There is no decade where the Steelers didn’t play in a Conference Championship game.  The Steelers were represented in the playoffs 80% of the time in the 70s, 40% in the 80s, 60% in the 90s, and 60% of the time so far this decade.

 

The New England Patriots

When considering the Patriots, it’s very easy to pinpoint the beginning of their dynasty. It’s not possible, by most opinions, to say their current dynasty run is over, even though they’ve not won a Super Bowl since 2005.  Let’s consider them from 1970 to the present.

• In the 70s, the Patriots were 66-78 (.458), making the playoffs twice, losing both games.
• In the 80s, the Patriots were 78-74 (.513), making the playoffs three times with one AFC Championship Game appearance, and one Super Bowl appearance.
• In the 90s, the Patriots were 68-92 (.425), making the playoffs four times, with one AFC Championship Game appearance, and one Super Bowl appearance.
• 00 Decade (to date), the Patriots are 102-42 (.708), making the playoffs six times, with five AFC Championship Game appearance, and four Super Bowl appearance

Clearly the Patriots were not an NFL force until this decade, having had only one marginal decade in winning percentage, and making the playoffs only 7 times in 30 years with a 7-10 playoff record.  In fact, the Steelers decade of the 1980s, the team’s worst since 1970, is still better in comparison to the three previous Patriots decades.

The Patriots cannot be considered more than a “periodic” dynasty, having had only an 8 year run of dominance in their history.

 

The San Francisco 49ers

The 49ers make a more lasting mark with a two decade, multi-QB, dominating impact.  However, they have a clear beginning and end to their dynasty. 

• The 1970s were a forgettable decade. The 49ers were 60-82 (.423) with 3 playoff appearances. The decade started off well, with three consecutive playoff appearances, and 2 NFC Championship game appearances, but the following seven seasons were abysmal.
• Combining the decades of the 80s and 90s, the 49ers were an incredible 217-94 (.698) with 15 playoff appearances in 20 years, 10 NFC Conference Championship Games, and five Super Bowl titles.  From 1981 to 1998, the 49ers were an eye-popping 207-72 (.742).
• You can clearly identify the finite end to the 49ers dynasty, beginning in 1999 season when the team, coming off of a 12-4 season with Steve Young at the helm, went 4-12 with Garcia taking over the reins.  In this decade, the 49ers have been a woeful 60-84 (.417) with two playoff appearances.

While a tremendously dominant team for 18 consecutive seasons, the 49ers performance prior to 1981 and after 1998 remove them from consideration.

 

The Dallas Cowboys

The Dallas Cowboys appear to be the only team that could be considered a true competitor with the Steelers as a potential “perpetual” dynasty. 

• In the 1970s, the Cowboys were 105-39 (.729) with nine playoff appearances, seven NFC championship game appearances, five Super Bowl appearances, and two Super Bowl Titles. 
• Like the Steelers, they had a “lull” in the 1980s, but didn’t completely lose their focus going 79-73 record (.520) with five playoff appearances and three NFC Championship game appearances.
• The 90s were a decade of dominance for the Cowboys, finishing 101-59 (.631) with eight playoff appearances, four NFC Conference Championship games and three Super Bowl titles.
• The Cowboys however, take themselves out of the discussion with their recent history, starting with the 1997 season where the team went 6-10, and have been fighting since to turn the franchise around.  Dallas is 71-73 (.493) in the current decade alone and 95-97 (.495) since 1997.  The Cowboys have been in the playoffs only three times this decade and have failed to win a playoff game since 1996 – twelve full NFL seasons.

It is this 12 year lull that marks a clear and definitive end to the Cowboys’ 26 year run of dominance.

 

Conclusion

It should be obvious to most that the Steelers, with their 6th Super Bowl title this past February, are the NFL’s most dominant franchise since the AFL-NFL merger in 1970.  Only the Miami Dolphins have won more regular season games since 1970 than the Steelers, and that lead is a mere one game – a margin Pittsburgh should overcome in the 2009 NFL season.

Pittsburgh has shown a continued winning tradition, never suffering a decade with a losing record. In 39 years the Steelers have had back-to-back losing seasons only three times.

If there were a discussion (and maybe there should be) about the only Perpetual NFL Dynasty, it should be a short one.

Are the Steelers the NFL’s Only Perpetual Dynasty?

With all of the recent talk about the NFL Team of the Decade (a year early), I thought it would be fun to start a new discussion as to what team could be considered the NFL’s only perpetual dynasty.

There’s current talk about the Steelers potentially being on the cusp of a second dynasty, if it already isn’t. I would argue that the Steelers dynasty of the 70s may have never really ended, and they are the NFL’s only “perpetual” dynasty (since the AFL-NFL merger in 1970).

A dynasty is literally defined as “a succession of rulers of the same line of descent,” or “a powerful group or family that maintains its position for a considerable time.”   There is no formal definition for a “sports dynasty” however, and the definition is often left up to speculation and debate by sports fans. 

A sports dynasty is generally considered to be a team that dominates their sport for multiple seasons or years. It has a beginning and an end. While the beginning or end may not be a pinpoint in time, the dynasty does fit within a space of time.

Many argue a sports dynasty must be highlighted by championships. Others believe titles aren’t necessarily required so long as the team remains dominant in regular season wins over time.

Current debates regarding the Steelers, Patriots, and Colts in the team of the decade discussion even focus on the number of AFCCG appearances.

Using these definitions, we can point to the obvious NFL dynasties—the Steelers of the 70s, the 49ers and Redskins of the 80s, the Cowboys and Bills (yes the Bills) of the 90s, and the Patriots of this decade.

What if you consider them all together – Wins, titles, and Championship game appearances – since 1970?

If you make this consideration, you can pinpoint one and only one candidate for the NFL’s only perpetual dynasty—the Pittsburgh Steelers.

The Pittsburgh Steelers

• 1970s:

• 99-44 Losses (.692)
• 8 Playoff Appearances
• 5 AFC Championship Game Appearances
• 4 Super Bowl Titles

• 1980s:

• 77-75 (.507)
• 4 Playoff Appearances
• 1 AFC Championship Game appearance

• 1990s:

• 93-67 (.581)
• 6 Playoff Appearances
• 3 AFC Championship Game Appearances
• 1 Super Bowl appearance

• 00 Decade (to date):

• 94-49 Losses (.657)
• 6 Playoff Appearances
• 4 AFC Championship Game Appearances
• 2 Super Bowl Titles

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

As compared to the other dynasties, was there ever really a finite end of the Steelers 70s dynasty?  If you consider wins, playoff appearances, championship games, and Super Bowl visits and titles, there’s a strong argument to be made that Pittsburgh never left the dynasty dance floor.

The obvious argument against the Steelers in this discussion is the decade of the 1980s.  While obviously the most difficult in the past 40 years for the Steelers, it was still well above par by NFL standards. It was a decade with a positive winning percentage (.507), the Steelers still made the playoffs 40% of the time, and made a trip to the AFC Championship Game.

Did the Steelers “dynasty” truly disappear, and is there a finite end to their dynasty as you saw with the other dynasties?  It does not appear there is.  There is no decade where the Steelers played sub-.500 football.  There is no decade where the Steelers didn’t play in a Conference Championship game.  The Steelers were represented in the playoffs 80% of the time in the 70s, 40% in the 80s, 60% in the 90s, and 60% of the time so far this decade.

 

The New England Patriots

When considering the Patriots, it’s very easy to pinpoint the beginning of their dynasty. It’s not possible, by most opinions, to say their current dynasty run is over, even though they’ve not won a Super Bowl since 2005.  Let’s consider them from 1970 to the present.

• In the 70s, the Patriots were 66-78 (.458), making the playoffs twice, losing both games.
• In the 80s, the Patriots were 78-74 (.513), making the playoffs three times with one AFC Championship Game appearance, and one Super Bowl appearance.
• In the 90s, the Patriots were 68-92 (.425), making the playoffs four times, with one AFC Championship Game appearance, and one Super Bowl appearance.
• 00 Decade (to date), the Patriots are 102-42 (.708), making the playoffs six times, with five AFC Championship Game appearance, and four Super Bowl appearance

Clearly the Patriots were not an NFL force until this decade, having had only one marginal decade in winning percentage, and making the playoffs only 7 times in 30 years with a 7-10 playoff record.  In fact, the Steelers decade of the 1980s, the team’s worst since 1970, is still better in comparison to the three previous Patriots decades.

The Patriots cannot be considered more than a “periodic” dynasty, having had only an 8 year run of dominance in their history.

 

The San Francisco 49ers

The 49ers make a more lasting mark with a two decade, multi-QB, dominating impact.  However, they have a clear beginning and end to their dynasty. 

• The 1970s were a forgettable decade. The 49ers were 60-82 (.423) with 3 playoff appearances. The decade started off well, with three consecutive playoff appearances, and 2 NFC Championship game appearances, but the following seven seasons were abysmal.
• Combining the decades of the 80s and 90s, the 49ers were an incredible 217-94 (.698) with 15 playoff appearances in 20 years, 10 NFC Conference Championship Games, and five Super Bowl titles.  From 1981 to 1998, the 49ers were an eye-popping 207-72 (.742).
• You can clearly identify the finite end to the 49ers dynasty, beginning in 1999 season when the team, coming off of a 12-4 season with Steve Young at the helm, went 4-12 with Garcia taking over the reins.  In this decade, the 49ers have been a woeful 60-84 (.417) with two playoff appearances.

While a tremendously dominant team for 18 consecutive seasons, the 49ers performance prior to 1981 and after 1998 remove them from consideration.

 

The Dallas Cowboys

The Dallas Cowboys appear to be the only team that could be considered a true competitor with the Steelers as a potential “perpetual” dynasty. 

• In the 1970s, the Cowboys were 105-39 (.729) with nine playoff appearances, seven NFC championship game appearances, five Super Bowl appearances, and two Super Bowl Titles. 
• Like the Steelers, they had a “lull” in the 1980s, but didn’t completely lose their focus going 79-73 record (.520) with five playoff appearances and three NFC Championship game appearances.
• The 90s were a decade of dominance for the Cowboys, finishing 101-59 (.631) with eight playoff appearances, four NFC Conference Championship games and three Super Bowl titles.
• The Cowboys however, take themselves out of the discussion with their recent history, starting with the 1997 season where the team went 6-10, and have been fighting since to turn the franchise around.  Dallas is 71-73 (.493) in the current decade alone and 95-97 (.495) since 1997.  The Cowboys have been in the playoffs only three times this decade and have failed to win a playoff game since 1996 – twelve full NFL seasons.

It is this 12 year lull that marks a clear and definitive end to the Cowboys’ 26 year run of dominance.

 

Conclusion

It should be obvious to most that the Steelers, with their 6th Super Bowl title this past February, are the NFL’s most dominant franchise since the AFL-NFL merger in 1970.  Only the Miami Dolphins have won more regular season games since 1970 than the Steelers, and that lead is a mere one game – a margin Pittsburgh should overcome in the 2009 NFL season.

Pittsburgh has shown a continued winning tradition, never suffering a decade with a losing record. In 39 years the Steelers have had back-to-back losing seasons only three times.

If there were a discussion (and maybe there should be) about the only Perpetual NFL Dynasty, it should be a short one.

How the UFL and NFL Can Work Together

When the UFL announced that they would be having there inaugural season this fall, I was excited, very excited.

It’s not just because it’s more football, but because it offers something a little bit different, something that the XFL and other start-up leagues didn’t.

Now, I don’t believe that this league will act as a competitor. Not at first anyway. But it will offer a safety net to all those players that fall through the gaps in NFL scouting departments.

There are some players in college who go undrafted, but that doesn’t mean that they are bad players. Maybe they just need more time to develop. However after going undrafted, getting signed and then released several times a summer, some drop off the face of the earth, or go over the Europe. But in some scouting circles, it’s the same difference.

Kurt Warner was undrafted, Bart Scott was undrafted, and Tom Brady was close to being undrafted. All of these players are now good NFL players, but for every mistake that is rectified there are 10 that get away.

The UFL are not star hunting. They are not throwing money in the direction of NFL free agents to try and compete straight away. That’s just not a smart business move. Trying to compete straight off the bat with a national institution like the NFL is only going to end one way, and you can ask other start league CEO’s what way that is.

However, the UFL are offering players who slip through from the NFL a chance to prove that they belong on a football field. As a Notre Dame football fan, Maurice Crum Jr. might find it difficult to stick with a NFL team this summer. He was an undrafted player.

However, he is a good player, so seeing the UFL give him a chance if he fails to find a NFL team has certainly got me interested in the league.

So that brings me back to my initial point: the NFL and UFL can work together. The UFL offers a developmental league, one that the NFL doesn’t have to pay for (unlike NFL Europe which the NFL pays for).

There is more money to be made in the UFL than there would be if a player stayed on a NFL practice squad, and how much can you really understand a player’s ability from there practice squad performance? Teams need to see them in live game action to really gauge where a player’s ability stands.

The UFL has already signed a television contract with Versus: extra exposure, more revenue, better league performance.

Who doesn’t want more football? I know I will watch just about any football they put on TV, but if I have a chance to see some of my old college favorites playing professional football, I’m taking that chance and running with it.

The NFL doesn’t need to be wary of the UFL; it needs to embrace it. And there are signs that it already is beginning to.

How the UFL and NFL Can Work Together

When the UFL announced that they would be having there inaugural season this fall, I was excited, very excited.

It’s not just because it’s more football, but because it offers something a little bit different, something that the XFL and other start-up leagues didn’t.

Now, I don’t believe that this league will act as a competitor. Not at first anyway. But it will offer a safety net to all those players that fall through the gaps in NFL scouting departments.

There are some players in college who go undrafted, but that doesn’t mean that they are bad players. Maybe they just need more time to develop. However after going undrafted, getting signed and then released several times a summer, some drop off the face of the earth, or go over the Europe. But in some scouting circles, it’s the same difference.

Kurt Warner was undrafted, Bart Scott was undrafted, and Tom Brady was close to being undrafted. All of these players are now good NFL players, but for every mistake that is rectified there are 10 that get away.

The UFL are not star hunting. They are not throwing money in the direction of NFL free agents to try and compete straight away. That’s just not a smart business move. Trying to compete straight off the bat with a national institution like the NFL is only going to end one way, and you can ask other start league CEO’s what way that is.

However, the UFL are offering players who slip through from the NFL a chance to prove that they belong on a football field. As a Notre Dame football fan, Maurice Crum Jr. might find it difficult to stick with a NFL team this summer. He was an undrafted player.

However, he is a good player, so seeing the UFL give him a chance if he fails to find a NFL team has certainly got me interested in the league.

So that brings me back to my initial point: the NFL and UFL can work together. The UFL offers a developmental league, one that the NFL doesn’t have to pay for (unlike NFL Europe which the NFL pays for).

There is more money to be made in the UFL than there would be if a player stayed on a NFL practice squad, and how much can you really understand a player’s ability from there practice squad performance? Teams need to see them in live game action to really gauge where a player’s ability stands.

The UFL has already signed a television contract with Versus: extra exposure, more revenue, better league performance.

Who doesn’t want more football? I know I will watch just about any football they put on TV, but if I have a chance to see some of my old college favorites playing professional football, I’m taking that chance and running with it.

The NFL doesn’t need to be wary of the UFL; it needs to embrace it. And there are signs that it already is beginning to.

Why Plaxico Burress Is a Moron, and the Media Knows Nothing About Guns!

The media reported that Plaxico “accidentally” shot himself in the leg.

Plaxico stated that he accidentally shot himself in the leg.

If you have never fired/owned a gun, let me tell you why this is complete nonsense, and why the media should do their homework before writing articles about guns.

Plaxico shot himself with a Glock 9mm. The Glock 9mm is unlike most guns/rifles because it doesn’t have the typical safety switch, which, when pushed in, locks the trigger so that the gun cannot be fired. Instead, the Glock uses an unusual three-safety system: 1) the trigger safety, 2) the firing pin safety, and 3) the drop safety. The only way a Glock handgun will fire is if there is a bullet in the chamber and the trigger is pulled fully to the rear.

Regardless of what the Glock-makers say, this is not a safe gun to carry concealed. The fact of the matter is, once you pull the slide back, which loads a bullet into the chamber, your index finger becomes the safety. If you have this gun in your pocket and you put your finger on the trigger, you’re an idiot. Here is a link to an article on Epinions.com that explains further the flaws in the Glock’s safety system:

http://www99.epinions.com/content_4440367236

What all of this means is that the only way Plaxico could have “accidentally” shot himself is to have pulled the slide back, which then loads a bullet into the chamber. Then he would have had to pull the trigger all the way to the rear to fire the gun. This tells me two things: 1. Plaxico does not know a thing about guns.  2. Plaxico is a “MORON” and should not own any guns. Remember, this was an unregistered handgun that he brought into a nightclub full of people. A gun that was loaded, and ready to fire.

I can’t even begin to explain how he could have “accidentally” discharged a round into his leg. It takes some force to pull the trigger back on that gun. Even if you drop it, as Plaxico later claimed he did, the gun will not fire because the hammer does not go back unless you pull the trigger. Was he so drunk that he thought he was pulling out his wallet?

If anyone can come up with a better explanation than “MORON” I would love to hear it.

What really upsets me about this whole case is that as someone who grew up around guns, and is licensed and trained on how to safely handle firearms, I have to sit back and watch my 2nd Amendment rights chipped away at everyday (this is only slight hyperbole). People like Plaxico fuel the anti-gun activists, and more and more restrictions are put on responsible citizens like myself.

It was recently disclosed that Plaxico turned down a plea deal that would have sent him to jail for a few months and required him to do 1,500 hours of community service. Instead, Plaxico wants to go to trial. Good for you Plax. I hope the judge gives you 2-3 years in jail, and that Roger Goodell suspends you for a year.

Remember everyone, “Guns don’t kill people, idiots like Plaxico Burress do.”

As always you can see all of my other articles on my Colts/NFL blog on Facebook

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=106021079611

Why Plaxico Burress Is a Moron, and the Media Knows Nothing About Guns!

The media reported that Plaxico “accidentally” shot himself in the leg.

Plaxico stated that he accidentally shot himself in the leg.

If you have never fired/owned a gun, let me tell you why this is complete nonsense, and why the media should do their homework before writing articles about guns.

Plaxico shot himself with a Glock 9mm. The Glock 9mm is unlike most guns/rifles because it doesn’t have the typical safety switch, which, when pushed in, locks the trigger so that the gun cannot be fired. Instead, the Glock uses an unusual three-safety system: 1) the trigger safety, 2) the firing pin safety, and 3) the drop safety. The only way a Glock handgun will fire is if there is a bullet in the chamber and the trigger is pulled fully to the rear.

Regardless of what the Glock-makers say, this is not a safe gun to carry concealed. The fact of the matter is, once you pull the slide back, which loads a bullet into the chamber, your index finger becomes the safety. If you have this gun in your pocket and you put your finger on the trigger, you’re an idiot. Here is a link to an article on Epinions.com that explains further the flaws in the Glock’s safety system:

http://www99.epinions.com/content_4440367236

What all of this means is that the only way Plaxico could have “accidentally” shot himself is to have pulled the slide back, which then loads a bullet into the chamber. Then he would have had to pull the trigger all the way to the rear to fire the gun. This tells me two things: 1. Plaxico does not know a thing about guns.  2. Plaxico is a “MORON” and should not own any guns. Remember, this was an unregistered handgun that he brought into a nightclub full of people. A gun that was loaded, and ready to fire.

I can’t even begin to explain how he could have “accidentally” discharged a round into his leg. It takes some force to pull the trigger back on that gun. Even if you drop it, as Plaxico later claimed he did, the gun will not fire because the hammer does not go back unless you pull the trigger. Was he so drunk that he thought he was pulling out his wallet?

If anyone can come up with a better explanation than “MORON” I would love to hear it.

What really upsets me about this whole case is that as someone who grew up around guns, and is licensed and trained on how to safely handle firearms, I have to sit back and watch my 2nd Amendment rights chipped away at everyday (this is only slight hyperbole). People like Plaxico fuel the anti-gun activists, and more and more restrictions are put on responsible citizens like myself.

It was recently disclosed that Plaxico turned down a plea deal that would have sent him to jail for a few months and required him to do 1,500 hours of community service. Instead, Plaxico wants to go to trial. Good for you Plax. I hope the judge gives you 2-3 years in jail, and that Roger Goodell suspends you for a year.

Remember everyone, “Guns don’t kill people, idiots like Plaxico Burress do.”

As always you can see all of my other articles on my Colts/NFL blog on Facebook

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=106021079611

« Previous Page — Next Page »

NFL Sport Channel Latest

• Just How Far Would You Go?
• Sorry Rex, But It Isn’t Happening
• Super Bowl Predictions: Five Stat-Free Reasons Why the Eagles Will Reach The Super Bowl
• Seahawks Attempt to Turn Corner With Heavy Pursuit of Pete Carroll
• Bill Cowher Unlikely to Coach in 2010