Is the Alabama and Patriots run bad for football history?

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,735
287
54
I've been meaning to post this for awhile, but things have came up in news. And it's the offseason.

So I'm apart of some trivia teams and I've noticed some questions in which my team is one of the few to get it right in which I felt it was common knowledge questions. Here are some

1) who are the 4 qbs with 3+ super bowl rings. My team was 1 of 17 teams to get it right
Bradshaw, Montana, Brady, Aikman

2) rank these teams in order from most to least of Heisman winners. USC, ND, Stanford, Alabama. My team was the only one to get it right Many put Bama at #1
I'm not 100% sure. I'd think Notre Dame leads and are you counting Bush at USC or not?

I'll say: Notre Dame/USC/Alabama/Stanford

3) name the team that had the only run which had 4 SB wins in 6 years. 20% got it right while the most put Pats and Cowboys
the Steel Curtain of the 1970s

4) what is the record between Bama and Florida in the SECCG. Was one of the 4 to get it right out of 20.
We won: 1992, 1999, 2009, 2015, 2016
They won: 1993, 1994, 1996, 2008

There are plenty more, but these were some I thought were very big headscratchers. The age range is 21-70 of these contestants with the median around 35-45 range.
Right about the time..... never mind

There have been plenty of articles in the last 3 years come out from Espn, Fox, and others suggesting these runs are bad for football. So I thought this might be a fun topic.

So here is the question," are these runs making runs like Steelers 70's, 49ers 80's, Cowboys 90's, Miami's 80's, and the 90's Nebraska runs more forgotten due to the dominance of the current runs by Bama and the Patriots?"

Fwiw I think not, but I'm finding less folks rembering the dominance of those others I listed. And I find it odd because I was only alive for the Cowboys and Husker runs but still knew a lot about the others.
Not to sound insulting but part of the reason for the fading memory is that folks old enough to recall the 1960s Packers are either dead, dementia'ed, or de-interested. And that number moves each year.

I think another issue is that people my age (47) who are not fans of particular dynasties - 80s Miami, 90s Nebraska - note that these were accidents of history to a large degree. You're well aware of my beef with Miami, but for the unfamiliar, I'll re-state it. While Miami was without a doubt a VERY good team and certainly a team you had to deal with, they were a fraud of a dynasty for the most part.

Let me speak bluntly - they weren't very good against GOOD teams away from home.

1983 - I know it's an unpopular opinion but Auburn should have been the national champion. But let's set that aside and ignore it. In today's world, Miami is out of sight and mind because Nebraska plays Texas and the winner is the champion. You can't blame Miami, but this was 1977 Notre Dame all over again.

1986 - they went unbeaten and I admit they looked like the best team in the country. But Penn State beat them despite getting outgained by almost 300 yards, getting only 162 yards total offense, and only eight first downs. Vinny T was a choker.

1987 - I have no problem with this year, they were the best team in the country and deserved it. That's one.

1988 - They might have been the best team this year, too, but they lost a classic in South Bend. Showing what a putz he actually was, Jimmy Johnson whined before the 1 Notre Dame vs 3 West Virginia Fiesta Bowl battle of the unbeatens that if WVA won then Miami should be the national champion. (He did this same crap in 1985......and then got blown out in the Sugar Bowl by Tennessee).

1989 - every year in college football history that a team beat number one head to head and had basically the same record, they became number one. In 1978, Alabama beat Penn State and became number one despite losing head to head with the other competitor, USC. But in 1989, the "rules" were set aside and when Notre Dame beat number one Colorado, Miami became number one on the basis of "they beat the Irish head to head." Fair enough, but that argument wasn't used in 1978 or 1993 or any other time I can think of.

Throw in the fact the referees gave Miami some much needed help against an overmatched Alabama team coached by a mediocrity, and they did not deserve this one, either.

1990 - made the mistake of scheduling good teams on the road and lost twice.

1991 - Miami and Washington both go unbeaten on the regular season. They can't play each other. Miami ducks Florida in the Sugar Bowl (given what happened to the Canes in 1985 and 1992, I think I know why) and opts for Nebraska's inflated rep in the Orange Bowl, their home. They actually lose 1/2 the title because of this disgusting act of cowardice. And let's face it, Miami was ranked number one because: a) they were in the East where most of the media is and Washington is in the FAR West; b) most of the press didn't watch the Huskies play; c) the recent history of Miami being ranked highly; and d) Miami beat #1 Florida State in the game of the year on a missed field goal.

Of course, Florida had an easier time with FSU than Miami did, too, in Spurrier's first SEC title year. Don't think Miami didn't notice that, either.

A group of cowards as far as I'm concerned in 1991.

And then George Teague ripped the dynasty right out of Lamar Thomas' hands, and it's been dead forever save for that three-year run in 2000s.

I have no regard for that team of that era and regard them as little more than accidents of history. Go look at their bowl record during that time outside of their home field. A loss to UCLA in the Fiesta, a ref-aided win in 1989 in the Sugar, blowout losses to underdog Alabama and Tennessee in the Sugar, and a shutout in the Fiesta Bowl in 1993.

Quite frankly, they were 1-4 outside the Orange Bowl post-season games 1985-1993. They should have been 0-5 and now you know why they ducked Florida.


Nebraska is a little more accomplished, which is good for them since they'll never again see a national title game without watching it on TV. But the problem with Nebraska's dynasty is something else - it's really nothing more than 2-3 stellar recruiting classes in a row. Then remember:

1) they didn't play Penn State in 1994, though it wasn't their fault. Penn St had the misfortune of playing Oregon in the Rose Bowl. Had they thumped a 6-win USC or UCLA back then it would have been more regarded than if they'd beaten an undefeated Oregon team. The East Coast press assumed the Ducks had to be second rate. But that was a high powered offense at PSU.

2) best team in the country in 1995. But any clowns who wish to argue that was the best team of all-time on the basis of the irrelevant stat of "nobody was even close," I pointed out that since 1991 (I didn't go back any further) only something like six teams that won national titles played easier schedules than 1995 Nebraska did. I'm sorry, but if you don't actually beat a decent team, you're not the best team ever.

3) in 1997, they got voted another share of a title based on the reputation.

The problem for them is that the game has evolved into something those guys cannot possibly even recognize now. Colorado won the title in 1990 with what essentially a wishbone attack (a variant of it). But the game changed and brought in passing quarterbacks on an unusual scale with Matt Leinart, a fact Bill Walsh noted when he said the OU blowout at the hands of USC would change the college game forever.

Nebraska was a running team and probably the only reason folks remember Tommie Frazier is that run against Florida, which was a clinic on poor tackling as much as anything. For Pete's sake, Nebraska won a game in 1994 with Frazier AND backup Brook Berringer out - because the competition wasn't that good.

Nebraska had a four-year run. Miami a manufactured decade.

We're on the tenth year.

1960s Alabama
1970s Alabama
1980s Miami
1987-2002 FSU
Current Alabama

Those are actual dynasties of varying degrees.
 

JDCrimson

Hall of Fame
Feb 12, 2006
5,346
4,417
187
51
Every dynasty has an and a shelf life to it just with the passage of time. Plus i think that we are in a better stage with the playoff for dynasties to be tested by the best teams every year. But I think sports in general are more watchable when there is a king of the hill. Just look at boxing now without a one true champion. The mediocrity there has severely diminished interest in the sport. Same with golf and Nascar now.

Parity in college football level out if more coaches would just sell in recruiting what coach sells and actually commit to it. Which if you will match the intensity and precision to which we coach/train you with the same level of effort we will make you good and you will have shot at professional football and stop talking thereafter, then you would see the elite players more apt consider other programs. But good players want to play with other good players. The recruits believe Saban supremely in this.

Other than Meyer who do we know is selling this in recruiting and following through on it?

The Patriots simply have an absolute unwavering commitment to their way of doing things and they simply go find the players to do it whether they are marquee or non-marquee.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk
 

gtowntide

All-American
Mar 1, 2011
4,288
1,092
187
Memphis,TN.
People who say Alabama is ruining it for everyone else really chaps my rear end! I remember Nebraska's run in the 90's and I really had a lot of respect for Coach Osbourne and what his teams accomplished. There is not a coach in the business that will outwork Coach Saban. He is also great at recognizing and developing talent and his system absolutely works.
 

BamaJama17

Hall of Fame
Sep 17, 2006
16,365
8
47
34
Hoover, AL
I sure hope so - Miami of the 80's and Nebraska of the 90's are weak dynasties compared to what Saban has done at Bama.

I'd love it if people relegated those 'dynasties' to secondary because the current dynasty is so much more impressive - it is.

As for the NFL, I honestly don't care either way, but I think the Pats run is more impressive than any other, so I also don't care if people forget about 'the steel curtain' from 40 years ago. Yawn.
The Packers of the 60's, The Steelers of the 70's, the 49ers of the 80's certainly compare. The Cowboys of the 90's just fall short because JJ left after 93. Had he stayed, they probably win 2 more SB's not including '95.
 
Last edited:

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,735
287
54
So here is the question," are these runs making runs like Steelers 70's, 49ers 80's, Cowboys 90's, Miami's 80's, and the 90's Nebraska runs more forgotten due to the dominance of the current runs by Bama and the Patriots?"

Fwiw I think not, but I'm finding less folks rembering the dominance of those others I listed. And I find it odd because I was only alive for the Cowboys and Husker runs but still knew a lot about the others.
81,

I think what you're saying (I may be reading it too literally through the words) is this - "are the dynasties today better overall than the dynasties of the past to the point those dynasties are less thought of as 'truly great teams."

If I'm reading your intent correctly here, my answer is both short and long, but if I'm not then my apologies.

Short answer: I think IN GENERAL that today's dynasties are actually greater all-time teams than the teams of the past. There may be exceptions but as a general rule they are. The long answer explains why.


Earle and I have talked via email about the recently departed Frank Deford's unusual views on dynasties. IIRC, Earle did say Deford FINALLY relented on Alabama being a dynasty, and I believe Frank limited his dynasty views to the Yankees and MAYBE UCLA college basketball and perhaps Boston Celtics basketball. The details are a little fuzzy, and I still recall the date of the email convo but the minutiae I'm not totally certain about. (If Earle is reading this maybe he can clarify).


We have to remember that dynasties exist in the context of the time. Let's look at a few examples in the four major sports and then we'll deal with college.

The Montreal Canadiens have won 24 Stanley Cups overall. But there were only six teams in the NHL prior to the 1967-68 season. While they certainly deserve credit for winning, it's just not that difficult to win a bunch of titles over a long period of time when you only have five other teams to beat. They won 14 of those Cups before expansion in 1967, so they've won ten and only two of those since 1979. In fact, Toronto (who has not won since expansion began) had won 13 cups in the same time Montreal won 14, so it's not like ONE team was so dominant that everyone else was left in the dust.

The NY Yankees have won 27 World Series, but let's take a closer look at a quickly compiled from memory list of baseball dynasties - no, they didn't win every year of their being competitive:

Chicago Cubs 1906-1910
Philadelphia A's 1910-1914
Boston Red Sox 1912-1918
NY Giants 1917-1924
NY Yankees 1921-1964 (never went more than three years without making WS and had prominent dynasties 1927-1932, 1936-39, 1947-64)
Philadelphia A's 1929-31
St Louis Cardinals 1926-1934
St Louis Cardinals 1942-1946 (somewhat tainted by WW2)
Brooklyn Dodgers 1947-1956 (an NL dynasty but only one title)
Milwaukee Braves 1956-1959 (nobody considers them one because they only won it once)
LA Dodgers 1959-1965 (and made the 66 WS)
Baltimore Orioles 1966-1971
St Louis Cardinals 1964-1968
Oakland A's 1971-75
Cincinnati Reds 1970-76
NY Yankees 1996-2001
SF Giants 2010-2014

Now, did you notice something? Did you see that the moment that free agency hit (1976), long-term baseball dynasties died? Note something else: the Yankees dynasty died in 1965, which just happened to be the same year as the first-ever baseball draft of common players. Prior to that, the Yankees had the most money and the most resources to find the diamonds in the rough like Mickey Mantle out in Oklahoma. And because of the reserve clause (which was the pre-free agency rule), Mantle could not go to another team unless the Yankees wanted to get rid of him. Teams could not bid for him. It is simplistic to say that the beginning of the draft destroyed the Yankees - they were on the way out anyway due to other factors such as expansion (starting in 1961), franchise relocation (started 1953), baseball expanding west of St Louis mandating travel (1958), the Yankees management's racism (first black player was Elston Howard in 1955; the Yankees were the 13th team to integrate when there were only 16 teams - and that was eight years after Jackie Robinson), and other factors.

Now let's reduce dynasty status to "teams that actually won consecutive World Series:
Cubs 1907-08
A's 1910-11 (beat the Cubs in 10)
Red Sox 1915-16
NY Giants 1921-22
Yankes 27-28
A's 29-30
Yankees 36-39
Yankees 49-53

Yankees 61-62
A's 72-74
Reds 75-76
Yankees 77-78
Blue Jays 92-93
Yankees 98-00

And three in a row limits you to the bold teams.

The point is that the Yankees winning all those World Series back in the day - while impressive - was nowhere near as difficult as winning is nowadays. Today, you might lose half your Series champion roster within days of the series ending. Yogi Berra was on the team in 47 when they won and was on the 62 champions when they won. Mantle and Whitey Ford were on the 53 champions AND the 64 WS losers. That could never happen today, you cannot keep the core together long enough to do that. There are MANY more teams (we've gone from 16 in 1960 to 30 now). There are THREE rounds of playoffs now - it used to be that when the Yankees finished first they went directly to the WS.


Okay, let's now consider the NFL.

The NFL began in 1920 with fourteen teams and no playoffs; the team with the best record at the end of the season won the championship. The NFL also - unlike baseball after the 1922 anti-trust exemption - had a lot of competition from outside leagues like the AAFC. The Packers, Bears, and Giants are long-term teams who won titles a long time ago.

The Packers of the 60s are recalled fondly and Vince Lombardi is the Coach Bryant of the NFL. But again - there were only 13 teams in the NFL of 1960. They were at 15 in 1966, the year of the first Super Bowl. It was the addition of the AFL in 1970 - a move made because as my Dad put it (who watched it), "The AFL was a passing game and superior product and would have put the NFL out of business if they didn't merge." That they were dominant in their time is indisputable, and they have the cache of winning the first two Super Bowls (had they lost to KC, it would have been embarrassing).

The Steelers of the 70s are certainly a more prominent dynasty, and if you really look at the 1970s, four teams emerge: Pittsburgh, Dallas, Miami and Oakland. Think about this: from Super Bowl V to Super Bowl XIX - a span of 15 Super Bowls - at least ONE of those four teams was in the game every year except XVI (and the Cowboys only missed that one by a single play). Oakland doesn't get dynasty status because their titles were spaced out over nine years, but they won more games than anyone in the 70s, including Pittsburgh.

But once again - the 60s Packers was virtually all white players with some notable exceptions (Herb Adderley, Travis Williams, Willie Davis) competing in a still almost all white sport. It's not their fault, but it's still a fact of history. That's part of why the 70s Steelers are so celebrated - look at the black stars on that team: Swann, Stallworth, Blount, Greenwood, Greene.

The 1980s 49ers were the first real dynasty I lived through. But let me say this - while I liked San Fran, they did not FEEL like a dynasty until 1989. They were a Cinderella story in 1981. In 1984 - back when I paid attention to every detail I could of the NFL - most folks did not even realize that the 49ers had a better record entering the Super Bowl than the Dolphins did. Why? Because the Dolphins got all the hype because Marino had the first 5,000-yard passing season with 48 TDs and the Dolphins didn't lose until week 12, so there was all that hype about the unbeaten Dolphins again. San Fran was the most anonymous 18-1 team in NFL history.

Do any of you "not as old as me" guys realize who the skill position players were on the 1984 49ers other than Montana? Not Jerry Rice, John Taylor, Brent Jones, Roger Craig. Craig was a fullback blocking for Wendell Tyler, and the receiving corps was Eason Ramson, Freddie Solomon, track star Renaldo Nehemiah, and Dwight "The Catch" Clark was actually injured that year. It was a bunch of no-names at the time, although Craig got 3 TDs in the Super Bowl.

Even in the late 80s - San Fran was NOT the dynasty, supposedly the Bears were. The Bears won it all in 85 with more hype than you ever dreamed, had a better defense in 86 but lost because McMahon was thrown down after a play and done for the season, lost in 87 when Walter came up a yard short, and hosted the 49ers in a wind chill around zero in the 88 title game and were the favorites. In fact, after 11 games in 1988, the 49ers were 6-5 and Walsh couldn't decide if he wanted Young or Montana as his QB.

He went with Montana coming out of two losses after week 11 and the 49ers went 37-4 up until their shocking loss to the Giants in the 90 NFC title game as they went for a three-peat. We THINK of them as dominant because of 1989 and the 1990 regular season. But they didn't FEEL like a dynasty until they shredded Denver in the Super Bowl. I'm just telling ya, I lived through it and it was nothing like now with the Patriots and Alabama as far as the perception.


I'm in no way trying to discredit the Niners dynasty as I rooted for them nearly every week. I'm just saying that they did not really strike fear in you until late in the 80s when they were on that run.


And then keep this in mind - free agency didn't exist back then in the NFL, either. It wasn't until 1992 we got something resembling the modern setup. And we have more teams now, which widely distributes the talent. That's why I think the Patriots dynasty right now is absolutely incredible, particularly when you remember only ONE player has been there the entire time.

And in my next post, a look at Alabama....
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,735
287
54
Alabama, of course, had the Bryant dynasty that is considered TWO dynasties - 1960-66 and 1971-79. But in fact, the actual dynasty itself was from 1960-1981. If you wanna know when it died, it was when Southern Miss beat us in T-Town for our first loss at BDS since 1963.

I'm gonna get ripped but just pay attention okay?

Coach Saban's dynasty is not only superior to what went on before but FAR superior. Don't take anything I say as knocking Coach Bryant or those teams; my first year as a Tide fan was 1978, so I DO have some recollection of Bryant but by my time he was an avuncular and gentle grandfatherly type in the press as opposed to the hard-nosed charger I've seen on tapes. He still had the charisma, though.

Alabama's dynasty of the 60s is undercut by the same thing I mentioned earlier - race. Again, it's not their fault, it's just a fact of life. But you then add in the fact that prior to 1965, the AP title was basically a popularity contest from primarily Eastern based writers who didn't even see the games of Western teams (or at least most of them) except perhaps on January 1.

In 1961, there was nothing but a formality. Alabama was the nation's ONLY unbeaten AND untied team other than Rutgers, who nobody took seriously as a contender. But given the reputations at the time, if LSU had not lost the season opener to Rice then the Tigers would have won the national title. Alabama and LSU did not play in 1961, LSU had the bigger name in terms of recent history (winning the 58 title and Cannon winning the Heisman), they played a tougher schedule, and they beat then national power Ole Miss (who didn't play Alabama). Or if Texas had not somehow choked and lost to 3-5-2 TCU, they would have won the title given that the writers would have gone for the bigger name. (To those hung up on our title numbers, the truth is that at the time we won the 61 title, the school's own newspaper said it was our FIRST, so please don't try to argue anachronistically that the press of 1961 thought we'd won a bunch of national titles - because in their view we had not). Make no mistake, we deserved it under the circumstances, but it was literally nothing like today.

Oh, and go look at the overall records of the teams we played that year. Our opponents had an overall record of 53-60-1 (we played TWO teams with seven wins or more in a ten-game season - though to our credit gave up only a field goal in eight quarters to those two teams). We played regional Southern football at the time, a far cry from nowadays.

1964 is a sore spot all the way around. A lot of folks argue the transitive property since Texas beat us and Arkansas beat Texas, therefore Arkansas > Alabama. Nobody knows that. But the fact is that we won the title by the rules agreed upon BEFORE the season began. Bowl games were realized to be glorified exhibitions at that time - it would be like saying the AL team wins the World Series because they won the All-Star Game. Of course, I like to smack people who rip us by turning around and asking if they think Kentucky (coached by you know who) should be awarded the 1950 title since they BEAT #1 Oklahoma head to head in the Sugar Bowl. That exposes their agenda since their real hidden hate is Alabama, not injustice. In fact, our 1964 schedule was quite challenging (64-45-4).

Besides, it made the landscape so angry that they decided for 1965 to change the rules - and Alabama AGAIN won the title by the rules agreed upon. The fact remains, however, that as great as that three in five years run was, we were an all-white team playing almost always.....all-white teams. In the context of their TIME, this was an awesome team. In the context of HISTORY? Not so much.

Btw - anyone know what Bryant's record was against ranked foes in 1961-65? It was 7-2, with most of that coming in 1964. In fact, we did not play a ranked foe in either 61 or 65 until the bowl game. Of course - once again - there is a context to things. Tennessee was not ranked when we played them in 65 because they had a tie and the season didn't start until Sept 18, so the Third Saturday in October was earlier in the season. That Vols team actually ended the year at number seven.

And then, God help us, came 1966. And the time the press turned right around and punished some white kids who did nothing at all wrong except have the misfortune of where they were attending school.

I recently had an argument with an opposing SEC fan who tries this nonsense. Going through the old ripping on us about our titles, here's what a dude said to me recently:

"Your 64 and 65 titles are a joke! If we had the same rules as nowadays, you don't get either one."

My response:
"Same rules as nowadays? BCS or Playoff? If we're going BCS then Alabama and Arkansas would have played as they were 1 and 2 in the final poll. On what basis do you assume Arkansas wins that game? If you're arguing because of Texas, not only would that game not be played but the replay would have validated Namath's touchdown, and this would all be moot. In 1965, you have a point if we're playing by BCS rules. Well, you might have a point. After all, there wouldn't have been a tie against Tennessee and the Georgia game would have been overturned on replay when the flea flicker toss guy was down, so Alabama would have had either one or zero losses. If the Tide was unbeaten AND if they'd won in 64, do you really think they aren't in the top two? But let's go to nowadays, the playoff - Alabama was still #4 at worst. And they mauled Nebraska, so you now have Alabama at the very least in the title game. Maybe they beat Michigan St, maybe not. And in 1966, who knows, since Ara Parseghian couldn't have tied one for the Gipper. That would have eliminated one of the two teams above Alabama.

The thing is, you don't REALLY care about the rules of today. You're just upset Alabama won the title and looking for a way to discredit it. Because if we DID play by the rules of today then there's no tie in 65, Georgia and Texas both lose, either Notre Dame or Michigan St loses in 66, and at the very least Alabama plays head-to-head for the title at least twice and maybe all three. In short, even your proposed solution doesn't get rid of your problem of Alabama winning. And besides, every single team could have done the same thing but they didn't. It's like when Phil Jackson whined about the 99 Spurs should have an asterisk. Why? Didn't the Lakers have the same opportunity?"


To me the most impressive thing about Bryant's dynasty is NOT six national titles (as it could have been more, and he went a decade between bowl wins), not the home winning streak, but the fact he won the titles at his age as the game AND society changed rapidly, and HE ADJUSTED with it. This is why I do think that Bryant could succeed today and Saban could have in the 60s.

But again, we're comparing dynasties.

Bryant didn't have scholarship limitations.
Bryant's SEC was nowhere near the bear (pardon the pun) that Saban faces - no SEC team other than Alabama won a national title from 1960-1979
Bryant had an advantage that he was on TV when most of his SEC opponents only were if they were playing Alabama (totally different era - this helped birth the accident of Nebraska football)
Florida had not yet really become Florida, with all that talent in state - he used to pilfer a lot of it easily and foresaw the day of the Gator dynasty

Saban's dynasty has been built during the most rugged period of SEC dominance ever seen - perhaps any conference dominance ever seen - with limitations, all schools (including some FCS teams) on TV every week, a fully developed state of Florida, and oh yeah, players leaving early for the NFL draft. Saban has also compiled a record against ranked teams that is utterly insane. I'll spot Coach Bryant a few of those bowl losses during teh sociological transition......but ten years between wins? Ouch.


Alabama winning is good for college and New England is good for the pros. I mean, I still recall when I actually hated Notre Dame and rooted for them to lose every week. I've paid no attention to Notre Dame other than one game in the last 20 years. They're a nothing, a nobody, a has been.

A hero needs a heel, and quite frankly I LIKE being the heel in this scenario. I LOVE that we're hated - it means we're winning. Nobody hates an underdog.
 

bama61

1st Team
Aug 24, 2004
655
29
52
North Alabama
Know this, I'm an utterly selfish.... well you get it! I don't care about pro sports, I don't care about college sports other than Alabama's sports. I just want to see my team win, and I don't really care how it impacts college sports or other programs at all, in fact I love it when they post their bitterness and despair. I believe some refer that to a "Slum Lord Mentality" and if so, I'm the class example of that attitude. But after all, I'm really not greedy, I only want to win the next game...
 

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
84,528
39,619
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
81,

I think what you're saying (I may be reading it too literally through the words) is this - "are the dynasties today better overall than the dynasties of the past to the point those dynasties are less thought of as 'truly great teams."

If I'm reading your intent correctly here, my answer is both short and long, but if I'm not then my apologies.

Short answer: I think IN GENERAL that today's dynasties are actually greater all-time teams than the teams of the past. There may be exceptions but as a general rule they are. The long answer explains why.


Earle and I have talked via email about the recently departed Frank Deford's unusual views on dynasties. IIRC, Earle did say Deford FINALLY relented on Alabama being a dynasty, and I believe Frank limited his dynasty views to the Yankees and MAYBE UCLA college basketball and perhaps Boston Celtics basketball. The details are a little fuzzy, and I still recall the date of the email convo but the minutiae I'm not totally certain about. (If Earle is reading this maybe he can clarify).


We have to remember that dynasties exist in the context of the time. Let's look at a few examples in the four major sports and then we'll deal with college.

The Montreal Canadiens have won 24 Stanley Cups overall. But there were only six teams in the NHL prior to the 1967-68 season. While they certainly deserve credit for winning, it's just not that difficult to win a bunch of titles over a long period of time when you only have five other teams to beat. They won 14 of those Cups before expansion in 1967, so they've won ten and only two of those since 1979. In fact, Toronto (who has not won since expansion began) had won 13 cups in the same time Montreal won 14, so it's not like ONE team was so dominant that everyone else was left in the dust.

The NY Yankees have won 27 World Series, but let's take a closer look at a quickly compiled from memory list of baseball dynasties - no, they didn't win every year of their being competitive:

Chicago Cubs 1906-1910
Philadelphia A's 1910-1914
Boston Red Sox 1912-1918
NY Giants 1917-1924
NY Yankees 1921-1964 (never went more than three years without making WS and had prominent dynasties 1927-1932, 1936-39, 1947-64)
Philadelphia A's 1929-31
St Louis Cardinals 1926-1934
St Louis Cardinals 1942-1946 (somewhat tainted by WW2)
Brooklyn Dodgers 1947-1956 (an NL dynasty but only one title)
Milwaukee Braves 1956-1959 (nobody considers them one because they only won it once)
LA Dodgers 1959-1965 (and made the 66 WS)
Baltimore Orioles 1966-1971
St Louis Cardinals 1964-1968
Oakland A's 1971-75
Cincinnati Reds 1970-76
NY Yankees 1996-2001
SF Giants 2010-2014

Now, did you notice something? Did you see that the moment that free agency hit (1976), long-term baseball dynasties died? Note something else: the Yankees dynasty died in 1965, which just happened to be the same year as the first-ever baseball draft of common players. Prior to that, the Yankees had the most money and the most resources to find the diamonds in the rough like Mickey Mantle out in Oklahoma. And because of the reserve clause (which was the pre-free agency rule), Mantle could not go to another team unless the Yankees wanted to get rid of him. Teams could not bid for him. It is simplistic to say that the beginning of the draft destroyed the Yankees - they were on the way out anyway due to other factors such as expansion (starting in 1961), franchise relocation (started 1953), baseball expanding west of St Louis mandating travel (1958), the Yankees management's racism (first black player was Elston Howard in 1955; the Yankees were the 13th team to integrate when there were only 16 teams - and that was eight years after Jackie Robinson), and other factors.

Now let's reduce dynasty status to "teams that actually won consecutive World Series:
Cubs 1907-08
A's 1910-11 (beat the Cubs in 10)
Red Sox 1915-16
NY Giants 1921-22
Yankes 27-28
A's 29-30
Yankees 36-39
Yankees 49-53

Yankees 61-62
A's 72-74
Reds 75-76
Yankees 77-78
Blue Jays 92-93
Yankees 98-00

And three in a row limits you to the bold teams.

The point is that the Yankees winning all those World Series back in the day - while impressive - was nowhere near as difficult as winning is nowadays. Today, you might lose half your Series champion roster within days of the series ending. Yogi Berra was on the team in 47 when they won and was on the 62 champions when they won. Mantle and Whitey Ford were on the 53 champions AND the 64 WS losers. That could never happen today, you cannot keep the core together long enough to do that. There are MANY more teams (we've gone from 16 in 1960 to 30 now). There are THREE rounds of playoffs now - it used to be that when the Yankees finished first they went directly to the WS.


Okay, let's now consider the NFL.

The NFL began in 1920 with fourteen teams and no playoffs; the team with the best record at the end of the season won the championship. The NFL also - unlike baseball after the 1922 anti-trust exemption - had a lot of competition from outside leagues like the AAFC. The Packers, Bears, and Giants are long-term teams who won titles a long time ago.

The Packers of the 60s are recalled fondly and Vince Lombardi is the Coach Bryant of the NFL. But again - there were only 13 teams in the NFL of 1960. They were at 15 in 1966, the year of the first Super Bowl. It was the addition of the AFL in 1970 - a move made because as my Dad put it (who watched it), "The AFL was a passing game and superior product and would have put the NFL out of business if they didn't merge." That they were dominant in their time is indisputable, and they have the cache of winning the first two Super Bowls (had they lost to KC, it would have been embarrassing).

The Steelers of the 70s are certainly a more prominent dynasty, and if you really look at the 1970s, four teams emerge: Pittsburgh, Dallas, Miami and Oakland. Think about this: from Super Bowl V to Super Bowl XIX - a span of 15 Super Bowls - at least ONE of those four teams was in the game every year except XVI (and the Cowboys only missed that one by a single play). Oakland doesn't get dynasty status because their titles were spaced out over nine years, but they won more games than anyone in the 70s, including Pittsburgh.

But once again - the 60s Packers was virtually all white players with some notable exceptions (Herb Adderley, Travis Williams, Willie Davis) competing in a still almost all white sport. It's not their fault, but it's still a fact of history. That's part of why the 70s Steelers are so celebrated - look at the black stars on that team: Swann, Stallworth, Blount, Greenwood, Greene.

The 1980s 49ers were the first real dynasty I lived through. But let me say this - while I liked San Fran, they did not FEEL like a dynasty until 1989. They were a Cinderella story in 1981. In 1984 - back when I paid attention to every detail I could of the NFL - most folks did not even realize that the 49ers had a better record entering the Super Bowl than the Dolphins did. Why? Because the Dolphins got all the hype because Marino had the first 5,000-yard passing season with 48 TDs and the Dolphins didn't lose until week 12, so there was all that hype about the unbeaten Dolphins again. San Fran was the most anonymous 18-1 team in NFL history.

Do any of you "not as old as me" guys realize who the skill position players were on the 1984 49ers other than Montana? Not Jerry Rice, John Taylor, Brent Jones, Roger Craig. Craig was a fullback blocking for Wendell Tyler, and the receiving corps was Eason Ramson, Freddie Solomon, track star Renaldo Nehemiah, and Dwight "The Catch" Clark was actually injured that year. It was a bunch of no-names at the time, although Craig got 3 TDs in the Super Bowl.

Even in the late 80s - San Fran was NOT the dynasty, supposedly the Bears were. The Bears won it all in 85 with more hype than you ever dreamed, had a better defense in 86 but lost because McMahon was thrown down after a play and done for the season, lost in 87 when Walter came up a yard short, and hosted the 49ers in a wind chill around zero in the 88 title game and were the favorites. In fact, after 11 games in 1988, the 49ers were 6-5 and Walsh couldn't decide if he wanted Young or Montana as his QB.

He went with Montana coming out of two losses after week 11 and the 49ers went 37-4 up until their shocking loss to the Giants in the 90 NFC title game as they went for a three-peat. We THINK of them as dominant because of 1989 and the 1990 regular season. But they didn't FEEL like a dynasty until they shredded Denver in the Super Bowl. I'm just telling ya, I lived through it and it was nothing like now with the Patriots and Alabama as far as the perception.


I'm in no way trying to discredit the Niners dynasty as I rooted for them nearly every week. I'm just saying that they did not really strike fear in you until late in the 80s when they were on that run.


And then keep this in mind - free agency didn't exist back then in the NFL, either. It wasn't until 1992 we got something resembling the modern setup. And we have more teams now, which widely distributes the talent. That's why I think the Patriots dynasty right now is absolutely incredible, particularly when you remember only ONE player has been there the entire time.

And in my next post, a look at Alabama....
You substantially correct about Frank's attitude on dynasties. I didn't think he'd ever change...
 

bodiddle

All-SEC
May 14, 2006
1,338
0
0
Alabama, of course, had the Bryant dynasty that is considered TWO dynasties - 1960-66 and 1971-79. But in fact, the actual dynasty itself was from 1960-1981. If you wanna know when it died, it was when Southern Miss beat us in T-Town for our first loss at BDS since 1963.

I'm gonna get ripped but just pay attention okay?

Coach Saban's dynasty is not only superior to what went on before but FAR superior. Don't take anything I say as knocking Coach Bryant or those teams; my first year as a Tide fan was 1978, so I DO have some recollection of Bryant but by my time he was an avuncular and gentle grandfatherly type in the press as opposed to the hard-nosed charger I've seen on tapes. He still had the charisma, though.

Alabama's dynasty of the 60s is undercut by the same thing I mentioned earlier - race. Again, it's not their fault, it's just a fact of life. But you then add in the fact that prior to 1965, the AP title was basically a popularity contest from primarily Eastern based writers who didn't even see the games of Western teams (or at least most of them) except perhaps on January 1.

In 1961, there was nothing but a formality. Alabama was the nation's ONLY unbeaten AND untied team other than Rutgers, who nobody took seriously as a contender. But given the reputations at the time, if LSU had not lost the season opener to Rice then the Tigers would have won the national title. Alabama and LSU did not play in 1961, LSU had the bigger name in terms of recent history (winning the 58 title and Cannon winning the Heisman), they played a tougher schedule, and they beat then national power Ole Miss (who didn't play Alabama). Or if Texas had not somehow choked and lost to 3-5-2 TCU, they would have won the title given that the writers would have gone for the bigger name. (To those hung up on our title numbers, the truth is that at the time we won the 61 title, the school's own newspaper said it was our FIRST, so please don't try to argue anachronistically that the press of 1961 thought we'd won a bunch of national titles - because in their view we had not). Make no mistake, we deserved it under the circumstances, but it was literally nothing like today.

Oh, and go look at the overall records of the teams we played that year. Our opponents had an overall record of 53-60-1 (we played TWO teams with seven wins or more in a ten-game season - though to our credit gave up only a field goal in eight quarters to those two teams). We played regional Southern football at the time, a far cry from nowadays.

1964 is a sore spot all the way around. A lot of folks argue the transitive property since Texas beat us and Arkansas beat Texas, therefore Arkansas > Alabama. Nobody knows that. But the fact is that we won the title by the rules agreed upon BEFORE the season began. Bowl games were realized to be glorified exhibitions at that time - it would be like saying the AL team wins the World Series because they won the All-Star Game. Of course, I like to smack people who rip us by turning around and asking if they think Kentucky (coached by you know who) should be awarded the 1950 title since they BEAT #1 Oklahoma head to head in the Sugar Bowl. That exposes their agenda since their real hidden hate is Alabama, not injustice. In fact, our 1964 schedule was quite challenging (64-45-4).

Besides, it made the landscape so angry that they decided for 1965 to change the rules - and Alabama AGAIN won the title by the rules agreed upon. The fact remains, however, that as great as that three in five years run was, we were an all-white team playing almost always.....all-white teams. In the context of their TIME, this was an awesome team. In the context of HISTORY? Not so much.

Btw - anyone know what Bryant's record was against ranked foes in 1961-65? It was 7-2, with most of that coming in 1964. In fact, we did not play a ranked foe in either 61 or 65 until the bowl game. Of course - once again - there is a context to things. Tennessee was not ranked when we played them in 65 because they had a tie and the season didn't start until Sept 18, so the Third Saturday in October was earlier in the season. That Vols team actually ended the year at number seven.

And then, God help us, came 1966. And the time the press turned right around and punished some white kids who did nothing at all wrong except have the misfortune of where they were attending school.

I recently had an argument with an opposing SEC fan who tries this nonsense. Going through the old ripping on us about our titles, here's what a dude said to me recently:

"Your 64 and 65 titles are a joke! If we had the same rules as nowadays, you don't get either one."

My response:
"Same rules as nowadays? BCS or Playoff? If we're going BCS then Alabama and Arkansas would have played as they were 1 and 2 in the final poll. On what basis do you assume Arkansas wins that game? If you're arguing because of Texas, not only would that game not be played but the replay would have validated Namath's touchdown, and this would all be moot. In 1965, you have a point if we're playing by BCS rules. Well, you might have a point. After all, there wouldn't have been a tie against Tennessee and the Georgia game would have been overturned on replay when the flea flicker toss guy was down, so Alabama would have had either one or zero losses. If the Tide was unbeaten AND if they'd won in 64, do you really think they aren't in the top two? But let's go to nowadays, the playoff - Alabama was still #4 at worst. And they mauled Nebraska, so you now have Alabama at the very least in the title game. Maybe they beat Michigan St, maybe not. And in 1966, who knows, since Ara Parseghian couldn't have tied one for the Gipper. That would have eliminated one of the two teams above Alabama.

The thing is, you don't REALLY care about the rules of today. You're just upset Alabama won the title and looking for a way to discredit it. Because if we DID play by the rules of today then there's no tie in 65, Georgia and Texas both lose, either Notre Dame or Michigan St loses in 66, and at the very least Alabama plays head-to-head for the title at least twice and maybe all three. In short, even your proposed solution doesn't get rid of your problem of Alabama winning. And besides, every single team could have done the same thing but they didn't. It's like when Phil Jackson whined about the 99 Spurs should have an asterisk. Why? Didn't the Lakers have the same opportunity?"


To me the most impressive thing about Bryant's dynasty is NOT six national titles (as it could have been more, and he went a decade between bowl wins), not the home winning streak, but the fact he won the titles at his age as the game AND society changed rapidly, and HE ADJUSTED with it. This is why I do think that Bryant could succeed today and Saban could have in the 60s.

But again, we're comparing dynasties.

Bryant didn't have scholarship limitations.
Bryant's SEC was nowhere near the bear (pardon the pun) that Saban faces - no SEC team other than Alabama won a national title from 1960-1979
Bryant had an advantage that he was on TV when most of his SEC opponents only were if they were playing Alabama (totally different era - this helped birth the accident of Nebraska football)
Florida had not yet really become Florida, with all that talent in state - he used to pilfer a lot of it easily and foresaw the day of the Gator dynasty

Saban's dynasty has been built during the most rugged period of SEC dominance ever seen - perhaps any conference dominance ever seen - with limitations, all schools (including some FCS teams) on TV every week, a fully developed state of Florida, and oh yeah, players leaving early for the NFL draft. Saban has also compiled a record against ranked teams that is utterly insane. I'll spot Coach Bryant a few of those bowl losses during teh sociological transition......but ten years between wins? Ouch.


Alabama winning is good for college and New England is good for the pros. I mean, I still recall when I actually hated Notre Dame and rooted for them to lose every week. I've paid no attention to Notre Dame other than one game in the last 20 years. They're a nothing, a nobody, a has been.

A hero needs a heel, and quite frankly I LIKE being the heel in this scenario. I LOVE that we're hated - it means we're winning. Nobody hates an underdog.
Why was Bryant not having scholarship limitations an advantage? The teams he played didn't have scholarship limitations either.
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,735
287
54
Why was Bryant not having scholarship limitations an advantage? The teams he played didn't have scholarship limitations either.
yes, and we all know that if there was no limitation this was a built-in advantage for the Alabamas of the world to snag anyone they wanted.

Miss State, Florida (terrible back then mostly), and Alabama offer a Gulf Coast Mississippi kid the same scholarship.

Alabama plays on TV the maximum number of times, MSU never, Florida rarely.
Alabama has the big name school and wins titles, the other two don't.
They're all about the same distance from home.


Which school do you think the kid is most likely going to choose?
 

bodiddle

All-SEC
May 14, 2006
1,338
0
0
yes, and we all know that if there was no limitation this was a built-in advantage for the Alabamas of the world to snag anyone they wanted.

Miss State, Florida (terrible back then mostly), and Alabama offer a Gulf Coast Mississippi kid the same scholarship.

Alabama plays on TV the maximum number of times, MSU never, Florida rarely.
Alabama has the big name school and wins titles, the other two don't.
They're all about the same distance from home.


Which school do you think the kid is most likely going to choose?
They are going to choose the school that wins. They did it back then and they do it today. That is why Bama has the best players today and also the best players back then. Same thing.
 

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
35,306
31,375
187
South Alabama
They are going to choose the school that wins. They did it back then and they do it today. That is why Bama has the best players today and also the best players back then. Same thing.
So Tunsil and the nkemdichi brothers chose a winning program?

The truth is once college football started becoming more televised the old guard started dying and competition started becoming closer. Miami and Auburn in the 80's are big examples. I think as great as CPB was the 80's would've been less dominant with Pat Dye at Auburn. Just look at where the first time people outside of the state of Alabama cared about the iron bowl... 1985.

Recruits want to be NFL players. To be NFL players they need exposure. The more exposure the better the chance. Exposure is pretty equal in the Power 5.
 

BamaJama17

Hall of Fame
Sep 17, 2006
16,365
8
47
34
Hoover, AL
81,

I think what you're saying (I may be reading it too literally through the words) is this - "are the dynasties today better overall than the dynasties of the past to the point those dynasties are less thought of as 'truly great teams."

If I'm reading your intent correctly here, my answer is both short and long, but if I'm not then my apologies.

Short answer: I think IN GENERAL that today's dynasties are actually greater all-time teams than the teams of the past. There may be exceptions but as a general rule they are. The long answer explains why.


Earle and I have talked via email about the recently departed Frank Deford's unusual views on dynasties. IIRC, Earle did say Deford FINALLY relented on Alabama being a dynasty, and I believe Frank limited his dynasty views to the Yankees and MAYBE UCLA college basketball and perhaps Boston Celtics basketball. The details are a little fuzzy, and I still recall the date of the email convo but the minutiae I'm not totally certain about. (If Earle is reading this maybe he can clarify).


We have to remember that dynasties exist in the context of the time. Let's look at a few examples in the four major sports and then we'll deal with college.

The Montreal Canadiens have won 24 Stanley Cups overall. But there were only six teams in the NHL prior to the 1967-68 season. While they certainly deserve credit for winning, it's just not that difficult to win a bunch of titles over a long period of time when you only have five other teams to beat. They won 14 of those Cups before expansion in 1967, so they've won ten and only two of those since 1979. In fact, Toronto (who has not won since expansion began) had won 13 cups in the same time Montreal won 14, so it's not like ONE team was so dominant that everyone else was left in the dust.

The NY Yankees have won 27 World Series, but let's take a closer look at a quickly compiled from memory list of baseball dynasties - no, they didn't win every year of their being competitive:

Chicago Cubs 1906-1910
Philadelphia A's 1910-1914
Boston Red Sox 1912-1918
NY Giants 1917-1924
NY Yankees 1921-1964 (never went more than three years without making WS and had prominent dynasties 1927-1932, 1936-39, 1947-64)
Philadelphia A's 1929-31
St Louis Cardinals 1926-1934
St Louis Cardinals 1942-1946 (somewhat tainted by WW2)
Brooklyn Dodgers 1947-1956 (an NL dynasty but only one title)
Milwaukee Braves 1956-1959 (nobody considers them one because they only won it once)
LA Dodgers 1959-1965 (and made the 66 WS)
Baltimore Orioles 1966-1971
St Louis Cardinals 1964-1968
Oakland A's 1971-75
Cincinnati Reds 1970-76
NY Yankees 1996-2001
SF Giants 2010-2014

Now, did you notice something? Did you see that the moment that free agency hit (1976), long-term baseball dynasties died? Note something else: the Yankees dynasty died in 1965, which just happened to be the same year as the first-ever baseball draft of common players. Prior to that, the Yankees had the most money and the most resources to find the diamonds in the rough like Mickey Mantle out in Oklahoma. And because of the reserve clause (which was the pre-free agency rule), Mantle could not go to another team unless the Yankees wanted to get rid of him. Teams could not bid for him. It is simplistic to say that the beginning of the draft destroyed the Yankees - they were on the way out anyway due to other factors such as expansion (starting in 1961), franchise relocation (started 1953), baseball expanding west of St Louis mandating travel (1958), the Yankees management's racism (first black player was Elston Howard in 1955; the Yankees were the 13th team to integrate when there were only 16 teams - and that was eight years after Jackie Robinson), and other factors.

Now let's reduce dynasty status to "teams that actually won consecutive World Series:
Cubs 1907-08
A's 1910-11 (beat the Cubs in 10)
Red Sox 1915-16
NY Giants 1921-22
Yankes 27-28
A's 29-30
Yankees 36-39
Yankees 49-53

Yankees 61-62
A's 72-74
Reds 75-76
Yankees 77-78
Blue Jays 92-93
Yankees 98-00

And three in a row limits you to the bold teams.

The point is that the Yankees winning all those World Series back in the day - while impressive - was nowhere near as difficult as winning is nowadays. Today, you might lose half your Series champion roster within days of the series ending. Yogi Berra was on the team in 47 when they won and was on the 62 champions when they won. Mantle and Whitey Ford were on the 53 champions AND the 64 WS losers. That could never happen today, you cannot keep the core together long enough to do that. There are MANY more teams (we've gone from 16 in 1960 to 30 now). There are THREE rounds of playoffs now - it used to be that when the Yankees finished first they went directly to the WS.


Okay, let's now consider the NFL.

The NFL began in 1920 with fourteen teams and no playoffs; the team with the best record at the end of the season won the championship. The NFL also - unlike baseball after the 1922 anti-trust exemption - had a lot of competition from outside leagues like the AAFC. The Packers, Bears, and Giants are long-term teams who won titles a long time ago.

The Packers of the 60s are recalled fondly and Vince Lombardi is the Coach Bryant of the NFL. But again - there were only 13 teams in the NFL of 1960. They were at 15 in 1966, the year of the first Super Bowl. It was the addition of the AFL in 1970 - a move made because as my Dad put it (who watched it), "The AFL was a passing game and superior product and would have put the NFL out of business if they didn't merge." That they were dominant in their time is indisputable, and they have the cache of winning the first two Super Bowls (had they lost to KC, it would have been embarrassing).

The Steelers of the 70s are certainly a more prominent dynasty, and if you really look at the 1970s, four teams emerge: Pittsburgh, Dallas, Miami and Oakland. Think about this: from Super Bowl V to Super Bowl XIX - a span of 15 Super Bowls - at least ONE of those four teams was in the game every year except XVI (and the Cowboys only missed that one by a single play). Oakland doesn't get dynasty status because their titles were spaced out over nine years, but they won more games than anyone in the 70s, including Pittsburgh.

But once again - the 60s Packers was virtually all white players with some notable exceptions (Herb Adderley, Travis Williams, Willie Davis) competing in a still almost all white sport. It's not their fault, but it's still a fact of history. That's part of why the 70s Steelers are so celebrated - look at the black stars on that team: Swann, Stallworth, Blount, Greenwood, Greene.

The 1980s 49ers were the first real dynasty I lived through. But let me say this - while I liked San Fran, they did not FEEL like a dynasty until 1989. They were a Cinderella story in 1981. In 1984 - back when I paid attention to every detail I could of the NFL - most folks did not even realize that the 49ers had a better record entering the Super Bowl than the Dolphins did. Why? Because the Dolphins got all the hype because Marino had the first 5,000-yard passing season with 48 TDs and the Dolphins didn't lose until week 12, so there was all that hype about the unbeaten Dolphins again. San Fran was the most anonymous 18-1 team in NFL history.

Do any of you "not as old as me" guys realize who the skill position players were on the 1984 49ers other than Montana? Not Jerry Rice, John Taylor, Brent Jones, Roger Craig. Craig was a fullback blocking for Wendell Tyler, and the receiving corps was Eason Ramson, Freddie Solomon, track star Renaldo Nehemiah, and Dwight "The Catch" Clark was actually injured that year. It was a bunch of no-names at the time, although Craig got 3 TDs in the Super Bowl.

Even in the late 80s - San Fran was NOT the dynasty, supposedly the Bears were. The Bears won it all in 85 with more hype than you ever dreamed, had a better defense in 86 but lost because McMahon was thrown down after a play and done for the season, lost in 87 when Walter came up a yard short, and hosted the 49ers in a wind chill around zero in the 88 title game and were the favorites. In fact, after 11 games in 1988, the 49ers were 6-5 and Walsh couldn't decide if he wanted Young or Montana as his QB.

He went with Montana coming out of two losses after week 11 and the 49ers went 37-4 up until their shocking loss to the Giants in the 90 NFC title game as they went for a three-peat. We THINK of them as dominant because of 1989 and the 1990 regular season. But they didn't FEEL like a dynasty until they shredded Denver in the Super Bowl. I'm just telling ya, I lived through it and it was nothing like now with the Patriots and Alabama as far as the perception.


I'm in no way trying to discredit the Niners dynasty as I rooted for them nearly every week. I'm just saying that they did not really strike fear in you until late in the 80s when they were on that run.


And then keep this in mind - free agency didn't exist back then in the NFL, either. It wasn't until 1992 we got something resembling the modern setup. And we have more teams now, which widely distributes the talent. That's why I think the Patriots dynasty right now is absolutely incredible, particularly when you remember only ONE player has been there the entire time.

And in my next post, a look at Alabama....
I meant to say this earlier but the Bears of the 80's really did underachieve considering all the talent they had. 5 straight division titles, 62-17 from 1984-1988. Of course the NFC was so tough and far and away better than the AFC at that time. After all they won 13 straight Super Bowls from 1984 to 1996. 1985 truly was a one year wonder.
 

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.