TheMalcolmConnection
01-25-2006, 10:49 PM
Honestly, this is how I feel about modern day dynasties. Say you win two Super Bowls while maintaining your core players, for the third it would be easy for those players to want to stay.
S.I. Top 10 Superbowl CoachesTheMalcolmConnection 01-25-2006, 10:49 PM Honestly, this is how I feel about modern day dynasties. Say you win two Super Bowls while maintaining your core players, for the third it would be easy for those players to want to stay. jdlea 01-25-2006, 10:52 PM I follow what you're saying, but I doubt that Tom Brady or Bill Belichick would ever claim that winning a Super Bowl was easy. TheMalcolmConnection 01-25-2006, 10:54 PM Not easy, but riddle me this... Do you think that Belichick would have won a Super Bowl with 3 different starting QBs? Because I DO think that Gibbs would have won 3 EASILY if he maintained basically the same team for years in a row. He probably would have won 4 in a row. jdlea 01-25-2006, 10:58 PM I don't know if Belichick could have or not. Cause I think that Bledsoe could have beaten the Rams the first time around. As for Gibbs, no shot at him, but wasn't the team with Rypien and Byner pretty much intact the next season? I don't remember cause I'm too damn young. Schneed10 01-25-2006, 10:59 PM Belichick was canned from his first head coaching job in Cleveland. What he's done with the Pats is flat out amazing, but that doesn't mean I'm going to forget about the Cleveland experiment gone awry. Gibbs is above him in my mind. bertoskins 01-25-2006, 11:18 PM if Gibbs won sb in this era, it can be verified that he is better the beilichick Beemnseven 01-25-2006, 11:24 PM I'm torn on the Belichick vs Gibbs thing. Gibbs won 3 Super Bowls with 3 different quarterbacks and 3 different running backs, but Belichick did it at a time when it wasn't supposed to be done. You're not supposed to be able to have dynasties at this time and the Patriots certainly became one. Hard to call. We always hear this, that the system as it's set up now is not designed to sustain dynasties. But while the rules have changed, the smartest, craftiest, and luckiest coaches and organizations will always adapt -- and a few teams have already found ways to do it. The Patriots, Eagles, Colts, maybe the Broncos ... it's all about who's the quickest to adjust to the new rules of the league and the salary cap and take advantage of it. While the salary cap has given the NFL a complete makeover from the "legacy teams" of the 80's, it still hasn't really demolished the concept of dynasties today. Instead of the 49ers, Redskins, Bills, and Cowboys of the 80's and early 90's, there are just different teams doing it. In short, the rules are different, but the results are the same. diehardskin2982 01-25-2006, 11:24 PM wait until next year Beemnseven 01-25-2006, 11:27 PM As for Gibbs, no shot at him, but wasn't the team with Rypien and Byner pretty much intact the next season? I don't remember cause I'm too damn young. Injuries and age began to take their toll on the Redskins after the '91 championship season. That, along with the fact that Dallas was able to hoard young talent seemingly out of nowhere -- and they absolutely dominated from 1992 -1995. Dirtbag59 01-25-2006, 11:32 PM You know whats funny is that if the Patriots had won the Super Bowl when Parcells was their coach then The Tuna would have become the second coach ever to win 3 Super Bowls w/ 3 different QB's. Instead he has to settle for 2. |
|
EZ Archive Ads Plugin for vBulletin Copyright 2006 Computer Help Forum