NFL dynasties disappeared; could Seahawks be one?

"The days of the dominant teams may be gone forever," said Ted Sundquist, a former general manager of the Denver Broncos and their director of college scouting when they won back-to-back Super Bowls in the late 1990s. "It's hard. It's beyond hard. There are different types of players now, different types of systems set up. The game's changed."

Sundquist is among those who thinks the reigning champion Seattle Seahawks could be equipped to buck the recent trend. Their roster was the fifth-youngest in the league last season, according to STATS. They have plenty of stars on both sides of the ball, including quarterback Russell Wilson and cornerback Richard Sherman; and GM John Schneider and coach Pete Carroll set the tone.


http://www.komonews.com/sports/NFL-dyna ... 20891.html

In the new NFL environment, so many more factors are now outside the control of a team. I think the likelihood of a dynasty is so much much smaller. The league seems committed to a more level playing field and parity.

Isn't it strange how Denver was never mentioned as a dynasty after winning back to back SuperB Owls? Just have been because Elway retired.

ivotuk":2fakombb said:

Isn't it strange how Denver was never mentioned as a dynasty after winning back to back SuperB Owls? Just have been because Elway retired.

Click to expand...

I distinctly remember that. The sentiment was pretty strongly, "welp, they got their Super Bowls so Elway could retire. Mission accomplished." Basically, they did what they wanted to do and that was the end of it.

As far as Seattle being a potential dynasty, sure. If any are to occur over the next decade or so, we're right up there in the conversation. The thing is, so is San Francisco. They've been almost as successful as we have been the past few years. Arguably longer, more consistent success; they just didn't win their Super Bowl. Pretty damned hard to have two teams in the same division vying for that elusive "dynasty" label. I'd say almost impossible for either one, let alone both.

So what happens when both Seattle and San Francisco win half of the next few Super Bowls? Has there ever been a pair of teams from the same division both a dynasty at the same time? That'd be pretty wild to see.

Seahawk Sailor":37g2ahc2 said:

ivotuk":37g2ahc2 said:

Isn't it strange how Denver was never mentioned as a dynasty after winning back to back SuperB Owls? Just have been because Elway retired.

Click to expand...

I distinctly remember that. The sentiment was pretty strongly, "welp, they got their Super Bowls so Elway could retire. Mission accomplished." Basically, they did what they wanted to do and that was the end of it.

As far as Seattle being a potential dynasty, sure. If any are to occur over the next decade or so, we're right up there in the conversation. The thing is, so is San Francisco. They've been almost as successful as we have been the past few years. Arguably longer, more consistent success; they just didn't win their Super Bowl. Pretty damned hard to have two teams in the same division vying for that elusive "dynasty" label. I'd say almost impossible for either one, let alone both.

So what happens when both Seattle and San Francisco win half of the next few Super Bowls? Has there ever been a pair of teams from the same division both a dynasty at the same time? That'd be pretty wild to see.

Click to expand...

Well I for one would be happy with that scenario, just so long as the Seahawks top it off with the most wins in this Decade.

Seahawk Sailor":3axlxy7q said:

they just didn't win their Super Bowl.

Click to expand...

"Just"? Like it's some small thing that they lost a Super Bowl rather than won one, lol.

RolandDeschain":nhya6qla said:

Seahawk Sailor":nhya6qla said:

they just didn't win their Super Bowl.

Click to expand...

"Just"? Like it's some small thing that they lost a Super Bowl rather than won one, lol.

Click to expand...

My point was they came up one game short. Still have had an impressive few years, and if they'd have won that game (and it was pretty close at the end), they'd have a better three-year push than we. Sure, we can play the shoulda-woulda-coulda- games all day, but ya gotta admit they've had a hugely strong run the past few years.

I completely agree, they have. That's why I said what I said; using "just" that way seems to, I don't know, diminish it. Maybe I'm just reading too much into it.

CARRY ON.

Seahawk Sailor":3qlum3p6 said:

RolandDeschain":3qlum3p6 said:

Seahawk Sailor":3qlum3p6 said:

they just didn't win their Super Bowl.

Click to expand...

"Just"? Like it's some small thing that they lost a Super Bowl rather than won one, lol.

Click to expand...

My point was they came up one game short. Still have had an impressive few years, and if they'd have won that game (and it was pretty close at the end), they'd have a better three-year push than we. Sure, we can play the shoulda-woulda-coulda- games all day, but ya gotta admit they've had a hugely strong run the past few years.

Click to expand...

Vikings and Bills been to the dance in a series of years and while many remember them as good, few give them Dynasty labels as well. They never won.

In theory yes, but in reality of the salary cap highly unlikely. The fact is, with so many players that have their contracts coming up. One of those being Russell Wilson who will arguably be taking up 15-20% of the cap, it will be impossible to keep the players that we know and love on the team. This is why I laugh we people compare any team before the mid 90's to any team now in regards to a dynasty. Teams like the early 90's Cowboys, who didn't have a cap to deal with and could add players like Charles Haley and Deion Sanders with out issue. Then they could also keep the players they wanted that were already on the team, which is a clear advantage to what teams have to deal with today.

Look at the 80's Niners for instance. Players that would be max contracts for their positions (Rice, Montana, Haley, Lott) would have crippled the cap if it existed back then. Not to mention the 2nd tier of great players they had (they majority of their OL, Taylor, Craig, Rathman, their LB/DL/DB crew), they would have never been able to stay under the cap. If we could keep this team together, there is no telling what it could achieve, but we will never be able see that come to reality.

So, without players giving a "home team discount" this team will have to continue to keep building through the draft, which is going to get more difficult each year. It's a "copy cat" league and players that we covet as an organization will start to be picked up by other teams. I just hope the FO and coaching staff say as hungry as we are as a fan base to continue to keep getting better, I hope and believe we can based on the age of this team. Will it be easy? No, but anything worth having never is. If any team has a great chance of being a dynasty it's us, but we have to have a lot of good happen over the next few years in terms of play and FO moves.

***EDITED SO WE CAN ALL READ IT***
***Sorry was a bit tipsy when written***

Seahawk Sailor":18i7lfpq said:

ivotuk":18i7lfpq said:

Isn't it strange how Denver was never mentioned as a dynasty after winning back to back SuperB Owls? Just have been because Elway retired.

Click to expand...

I distinctly remember that. The sentiment was pretty strongly, "welp, they got their Super Bowls so Elway could retire. Mission accomplished." Basically, they did what they wanted to do and that was the end of it.

As far as Seattle being a potential dynasty, sure. If any are to occur over the next decade or so, we're right up there in the conversation. The thing is, so is San Francisco. They've been almost as successful as we have been the past few years. Arguably longer, more consistent success; they just didn't win their Super Bowl. Pretty damned hard to have two teams in the same division vying for that elusive "dynasty" label. I'd say almost impossible for either one, let alone both.

So what happens when both Seattle and San Francisco win half of the next few Super Bowls? Has there ever been a pair of teams from the same division both a dynasty at the same time? That'd be pretty wild to see.

Click to expand...

Dallas, New York Giants and Washington all had good runs in the late 80's early 90's.

Reaneypark":1qw40ruq said:

Seahawk Sailor":1qw40ruq said:

ivotuk":1qw40ruq said:

Isn't it strange how Denver was never mentioned as a dynasty after winning back to back SuperB Owls? Just have been because Elway retired.

Click to expand...

I distinctly remember that. The sentiment was pretty strongly, "welp, they got their Super Bowls so Elway could retire. Mission accomplished." Basically, they did what they wanted to do and that was the end of it.

As far as Seattle being a potential dynasty, sure. If any are to occur over the next decade or so, we're right up there in the conversation. The thing is, so is San Francisco. They've been almost as successful as we have been the past few years. Arguably longer, more consistent success; they just didn't win their Super Bowl. Pretty damned hard to have two teams in the same division vying for that elusive "dynasty" label. I'd say almost impossible for either one, let alone both.

So what happens when both Seattle and San Francisco win half of the next few Super Bowls? Has there ever been a pair of teams from the same division both a dynasty at the same time? That'd be pretty wild to see.

Click to expand...

Dallas, New York Giants and Washington all had good runs in the late 80's early 90's.

Click to expand...

Funny Dallas is considered a Dynasty by many yet the Giants with Parcells and LT are not nor the Skins, Giants have their legendary players but are never in the Dynasty conversation.

McG":5fzibx1t said:

In theory yes, but in reality of the salary cap highly unlikely. The fact is, with so many players that have their contracts coming up. One of those being Russell Wilson who will arguably be taking up 15-20% of the cap, it will be impossible to keep the players that we know and love on the team. This is why I laugh we people compare any team before the mid 90's to any team now in regards to a dynasty. Teams like the early 90's Cowboys, who didn't have a cap to deal with and could add players like Charles Haley and Deion Sanders with out issue. Then they could also keep the players they wanted that were already on the team, which is a clear advantage to what teams have to deal with today. Look at the 80's Niners for instance. Players that would be max contracts for their positions (Rice, Montana, Haley, Lott) would have crippled the cap if it existed back then. Not to mention the 2nd tier of great players they had (they majority of their OL, Taylor, Craig, Rathman, their LB/DL/DB crew), they would have never been able to stay under the cap. If we could keep this team together, there is no telling what it could achieve, but we will never be able see that come to reality. So, without players giving a "home team discount" this team will have to continue to keep building through the draft, which is going to get more difficult each year. It's a "copy cat" league and players that we covet as an organization will start to be picked up by other teams. I just hope the FO and coaching staff say as hungry as we are as a fan base to continue to keep getting better, I hope and believe we can based on the age of this team. Will it be easy? No, but anything worth having never is. If any team has a great chance of being a dynasty it's us, but we have to have a lot of good happen over the next few years in terms of play and FO moves.

Click to expand...

You have good things to say. But please, in the future, do not be afraid of paragraph breaks. The enter key IS your friend.

:th2thumbs:

Aros":1ftf5l51 said:

You have good things to say. But please, in the future, do not be afraid of paragraph breaks. The enter key IS your friend.

:th2thumbs:

Click to expand...

*wipes tear from eye* I'm proud of you, Todd.

RolandDeschain":1vxcaz0t said:

Aros":1vxcaz0t said:

You have good things to say. But please, in the future, do not be afraid of paragraph breaks. The enter key IS your friend.

:th2thumbs:

Click to expand...

*wipes tear from eye* I'm proud of you, Todd.

Click to expand...

You should be pissed! Todd is stealing your work! 8)

Sports Hernia":ng07htog said:

You should be pissed! Todd is stealing your work! 8)

Click to expand...

That's a negative, Ghost Rider. He is joining in the holy crusade of correcting poor grammar; a noble and valiant cause.

chris98251":227na0vk said:

Funny Dallas is considered a Dynasty by many yet the Giants with Parcells and LT are not nor the Skins, Giants have their legendary players but are never in the Dynasty conversation.

Click to expand...

Each situation is different.

NYG won it twice. I don't see a lot of teams in the dynasty discussions having only won twice. The Raiders aren't in that discussion either having titles in '80/'83.

The Skins won it three times (and lost once). Not sure the loss is that big of an impediment so much as the time intervals between the titles. So much so that they did it with three different QBs who were not part of the team each time they won their successive titles.

A dynasty kind of implies 3 titles by 'roughly' the same team. Washington really won it with a lot of churn and the departures of all their standout players.

It's probably why the Seifert/Young niners aren't really included in the niners dynasty talk.

Being competitive is more certainly the goal rather than a "dynasty".

Given the NFL is a game of inches, and literally a few inches turned in the other direction last season could have changed the outcome for the season for so many teams. Hell wasn't there even a video where the Cowboys could have won the SB with the most random switched outcomes. I think the only way to really have a Dynasty is have a team that from top to bottom is just that much better than every other team in the NFL where even the inches don't matter. I think the salary cap doesn't allow any one team to be THAT much better than every other team in the NFL. Yeah we beat the Broncos by a ton, but we didn't exactly whoop the Niners in the NFCCG. That being said, do we have the potential, well given we have the potential to win the SB the next few years with our signings assuming Russ will be resigned.

Yes I think we do have the potential. But I wouldn't put money on it. It's nothing against the Hawks. It's just that hard to win a championship. Maybe if there was no salary cap and Paul Allen literally loaded our team with every half of the All-Pro team and we had even pro bowlers as our depth. Yeah much easier bet lol.

The Hawks do have the youth factor on their side of this discussion. But IMO that's only a small part of what goes into a dynasty.

IMO the most important factor is hunger and desire, which is a HUGE part of football. Do we still have the hunger and desire to win another SB? The players certainly think they do, but isn't that what EVERY SB team says the next year?

The fact is it's human nature for athletes to get comfortable after they just accomplished their lifelong dream. Are we different? We'll see.