The Last of the NFL's Super Teams: The Epic '80s

This article makes me yearn for the good old days where teams truly were dynasties. Perhaps going uncapped wouldn't be a bad thing after all.

The Last of the NFL's Super Teams: The Epic '80s | Bleacher Report (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/30811-The-Last-of-the-NFL-s-Super-Teams-The-Epic-80s)

This article makes me yearn for the good old days where teams truly were dynasties. Perhaps going uncapped wouldn't be a bad thing after all.

The Last of the NFL's Super Teams: The Epic '80s | Bleacher Report (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/30811-The-Last-of-the-NFL-s-Super-Teams-The-Epic-80s)

probably not great for the nfl, but great for us and the nfc east. even with a cap, we easily have the best top to bottom division.

I've made these comparisons so many times in my mind; pre free agency & post fa. Of course the 80s were good times for us & continuity was a Gibbs' hallmark, so those days will always be missed by Skins fans. It took me a while to get used to free agency & the cap, but like most fans I've accepted it & I'm probably an even bigger fan today.

This article is really just a bit of nostalgia, and I'm all for that, but he doesn't really make his central point very well at all. He doesn't even mention the Pats. Are they not a dynasty? Spygate or not, they've had more success than most of the teams that he cites as dynasties in the 80s. (Remember back then when everyone talked about the "super bowl hangover?" No one in the 80s won back to back.)

If his point is that free agency has changed the image & identities of teams too much, then he shoud've just said that. If his point is that there were several top teams back then, he kinda makes that point. Otherwise, what he basically says is that there is too much parity.

The Pats have proven that you can build a dynasty in this era. The Colts & Iggles have been close, but actually have been beaten by the Pats, otherwise we might be putting them in that class.

[quote=Mattyk72;453599]Perhaps going uncapped wouldn't be a bad thing after all.

I believe you are correct. We have not exactly kicked ass in the "capped' age

[quote=Mattyk72;453599]Perhaps going uncapped wouldn't be a bad thing after all.

I believe you are correct. We have not exactly kicked ass in the "capped' age

Ironically though, it's been the Danny's penchant to shop w/big $ for free agents & coaches that has been the main reason we haven't been successful in this era. The same things that built good teams back then still work today. Good teams still value the draft. The biggest difference is pointed out in the article, depth. YOu simply can't keep all your stars all the time, especially if one isn't getting enough playing time.

Recent moves by Danny & Vinny really look encouraging, they drafted 10 players this year & were smart w/re-signing vets. I hope to see more of the same, but I'm still wary that an uncapped year would be a big spending spree for danny, which could come at the expense of team chemistry.

Remember that in the 80s there was no cap, but also only Plan B free agency, which didn't allow marquee players to hit the market.

I don't know how I feel about the cap. I look at the yankees and see they can't win anything significant and they have record breaking salaries...although they are always in the "thick of it". We have money, and you know snyder will spend, so that will make us contenders, but will it mean we will have a team with no chemistry, thus no super bowl win?
I don't know.

The first time I ever heard the term "smashmouth football" was John Madden in the 80's describing the physical style of play in the NFC East. I can't imagine a more consistently great division over a sustained period that compares to the NFC East between 1982 and 1995.