I’m a geek when it comes to history. I devour historical knowledge. When I was in fourth grade I once lost a contest to read the most books because I chose to read multi-hundred page account of the World War II war in the desert while my buddy put up Barry Bonds-like numbers crushing the 50 page-a-book Hardy Boys series (I got over it).
So you might imagine my stomach-turning disgust when I logged onto ESPN this morning and saw an article by Mark “I make my career speculating shit to death” Kreidler. It was labeled “Fallen Dynasty” on the ESPN page and was obviously alluding to the Patriots surprisingly playoff loss to the Jets.
Look Mark Kreidler, I realize you have to write shit for ESPN so you can continue to live your enjoyable lifestyle of essentially doing nothing for living (of which I’m slightly jealous), but please don’t try to give the general American public lessons in historical dynasties, because that low-volume din you hear is every sports/history geek laughing at you.
Before I go into my own thoughts on New England’s dynasty, why don’t we review football’s modern dynasties to identify some telltale signs of “decline”?
The 1960’s Packers (1960-1967): Amazing team in its day, sustained by the immortal Vince Lombardi and a core of very intelligent and tough players like Bart Starr, Forrest Gregg, Jim Taylor, Ray Nitschke, Jerry Kramer, Willie Wood and Max McGee. They won five titles in that span (including the first two Super Bowls).
Reasons for decline: Lombardi retired after the second Super Bowl, exhausted from his pursuit of the three-peat. He was like Napoleon: no single man (or no 50 men for that matter) could ever replace him. Also, the team’s core turned out to be irreplaceable and their increasing age meant decreased production. The inability to replace them = dynasty toppled.
1970’s Steelers (1972-1979): The “Steel Curtain” is still the most badass nickname of all time. And they established the benchmark for dynasties in the Super Bowl era, winning four during the 70’s.
Reasons for decline: Just like with Green Bay, Pittsburgh simply god old. They never replenished the game-breaking players who were on their roster with younger game-breakers. Their Cover-2 defense didn’t work as well when they couldn’t pressure the quarterback without blitzing. Also, rule changes made it easier for the passing game and the Steelers didn’t adapt like the team shown below.
1980’s 49ers (1981-1994): Joe Montana, Bill Walsh, Ronnie Lott, Steve Young and Jerry Rice. What else do I need to say? You think of any of them and you think not merely of success, but the apex of professionalism. Five Super Bowls in a 15 year stretch was truly remarkable.
Reasons for decline: This one’s tougher, because even after 1994, San Fran enjoyed successful seasons. And they did what the previous dynasties had failed at: succession of quarterbacks. Even after Montana got injured, Steve Young didn’t miss a beat and won their fifth Super Bowl in 1995. Yet the 1994 institution of the salary cap helped to cause their decline more than anything. Roster attrition occurred heavily when they desired to keep the big stars for big contracts. The simply couldn’t keep the team depth.
1990’s Cocaine Cowboys (1991-1999): Say what you want about the Boys from this era (and as a miserable Giants fan I did), but they were f*cking talented. They oozed talent and a ridiculous ability to slaughter the opposition in the most ruthless fashion possible.
Reasons for decline: Well, other than coke, I'd say the salary cap and Jerry Jones’ ability to drive away Jimmie Johnson (triggering a decline in team discipline).
So what can we take away from this as common characteristics of a decline? One has to be the departure of the coach who put them on top (as shown with Green Bay and, to an extent, Dallas.)
Another has to be an inability to replace players as they get older (this is probably the biggest common denominator between the examples).
Also, you’d have to throw in the salary cap and its many consequences (pressuring teams to constantly be rebuilding).
And…cocaine.
What it means in New England (no matter what friggin Greg Easterbrook says)
So how does this apply to the Pats? Well, when I look around their roster, I don’t see a mass of players who look like they’re done. Brady might be 33, but as Brett Farve taught us, the same age rules don’t apply to quarterbacks as they do to running backs (or other positions).
And what about their defense? Only two men on their entire defensive roster are over 30, and while their pass-rush remains a glaring weakness, the young secondary as well as continued solid play from men like Wilfork and Mayo leads me to think they’ll only get better.
The other positive sign? Their ability to replenish the roster. Getting players like McCourty, Chung, Woodhead, Tate, Spikes etc shows they haven’t lost their touch in scouting. The perpetual stockpiling of draft picks leads me to think they’ll be positioned to address any issues they identify (like drafting this dude).
Basically Mr. Kreidler, you seem like the type of man given to hyperbole in a moment of opportunity. You never actually defined what you meant by “dynasty” just the same as you never defined what you meant by saying that the Pats dynasty is over.
And I take issue with the claim that “it’s hard to look at that New York roster without speculating that the Jets could be awfully good for an awfully long time.”
More of the Jets front seven is over 30 than under. And their offensive line is the type of unit that just can’t be held together in a salary cap era (as shown already with the loss of Alan Faneca last year).
As an unbiased observer of the Patriots, I’m not here to say that the Patriots will win another Super Bowl. But without question, the inevitable “their dynasty is over” crap just doesn’t hold water. End of story. So cheer up Pats fans, at least your friggin team didn't win 10 games and NOT MAKE THE PLAYOFFS!
No comments:
Post a Comment