How to create a Dynasty

[Mike]

When you look at the NFL throughout the SuperBowl Era, one prominent feature of a champion comes across loud and clear. Most often, a team or two will dominate a decade they will be the perennial Superbowl winners, leaving all other 'conteders' to the relics of history. Often, only these winners are remembered, and those other contenders and their players are left behind as an asterisks on the bottom of a page, nothing more than a historical footnote. When you examine the qualities of Dynasties, a few prominent features become evident and from this study, one could see the ingredients necessary to build a Dynasty. Moreover, we can see which teams are on the horizon and destined for such glory.

Ingredients for a Dynasty:
1) Great QB: Without Questions all Dynasties had a Great Qb from Bart Star, to Bradshaw, to Montana, to Aikman, to Brady. All of these guys are Hall of Famers or future HOFs.
2) Great Lines: Defensive and Offensive Lines were top of league
3) WR/RB: In the early days they had great RB like Franco Harris, Roger Craig, E. Smith, Lin Swan, J. Rice, M. Irvin, recently Pats had Dillion, Walker, Moss, etc...
4) Great Defenses: Defenses that could pass rush, stop the run/pass, elite Ds. I feel that that is the difference between the Pats teams than one SB and the ones that lost SBs, defense.
5) Great Coaching: they had the premier coach of the era (B. Belicheck, J. Johnson, C. Noll, B. Walsh, V. Lombardi, T. Lombardi, etc.)


Teams on the Dynasty Horizon:
1. Green Bay: Have great QB, Coach, etc... already won a SB
2. Giants: Already won 2 SB, have future HOF QB/Coach, good WR, great D-Line
3. Eagles: great Coach, Defense, all comes down to QB.

Future Looks Bright:
4. Detroit: I know seems strange but they have a QB that threw over 5,000yards! Great WR, good coach, but their defense is awful. No matter, they have the key pieces of a champion: QB. Will they get the rest?
5. Carolina: Imagine if Cam improves? He was the best rookie QB of all time! If there is zero improvement in his game, he would already be a top Qb. With a little improvement he can be a great QB. The major piece is in place, improving the lines, and weapons is next, but they have time.
6. Colts/Redskins: They drafted best 2 QBs to come out in a decade. If these two guys are as good as advertised, look for them to become perennial contenders. See P. Manning's 12 winning season's as a reference point.
7. Cincinnati: they are getting many of the pieces and are a very young team. It will all come down to Dalton and Coaching.

Future Footnotes:
1. Atlanta: sure they have a QB, somehow he does not excite me the way a John Elway did. He reminds more more of a Drew Bledsoe type.
2. Baltimore: they might win a SB before its all said and done. for that they will be remembered but I do not see them becoming a Dynasty
3. Chargers: only if they had better coaching. The Qb is good, very good, maybe great but he is approaching 30 and time is running out. Don't see a Dynasty. If they change coaches, a SB might be possible but its too late for much more.
4. Houston: Day late and a dollar short. Are they a good team? Sure. Are they the next Dynasty? No
5. Dallas: don't see them wining a SB but anything is possible. they have talent, but no way they become a Dynasty.
6. 49ers: Simply, NO QB! Comes down to that and that alone. Secondly, I don't see how they get a HOF QB. They might win a SB sort of like the Ravens did in 2000, but that Ravens team never made it back to the big show.

Other SB Winners
1. Steelers: are 1/2 for SB in this decade, sure they might win another but that won't make them a Dynasty plus they are getting old.
2. Saints: won one SB and Brees is getting older. There is little time left to become a Dynasty, plus it looks like this year is already a loss.

How do the Bills Stack up?
QB: average: if the Bills are ever to become relevant, that is a Dynasty, they need a HOF QB.
Lines: Improving but not Dynasty Caliber
Wr/Rb: ""
Defense: bellow average
Coaching: avereage

Conclusion: Unless the Bills somehow land the next big Top QB, they virtually have no chance of becoming a Dynasty.

[Joe Fo Sho]

How about we worrying about making the playoffs before we worry about being a dynasty...which is something very few teams have ever done.

[buffalobillsfan95]

I disagree in a way. I think the stronger your team is the better the results. The bills looked amazing at the start, because it was a bunch of nobody's with a chip on there shoulder. We need players that make players better and that compliments each other. Look at the steelers, big Ben isn't that great, there oline was in shambles and defense that laid the hammer. Teams are better when they all work compliment together

[Figster]

Teams like the Ravens have proved good Defenses can also win Championships/Become Dynasty teams without in my opinion necessarily having an elite signal caller.

Everyone knows I'm all for finding a franchise signal caller, its all I talk about every year, and I think the Nix/Gailey regime realizes how important it is, but the Nix Gailey Regime also realizes a good Football team is built from the Trenches out. I f we can't protect our QB ,and the Defense can't stop our opponent, a promising young QB prospect isn't really going to help right now. Atleast for the time being Fitzpatrick is so fast at getting rid of the football, he won't get killed playing the QB position like Trent Edwards.

It pisses me off we didn't draft a signal caller, but I understand...

[k-oneputt]

Punter. You can draft a punter in the 3rd. rd. and he might avg. two more yards a kick.

[Mike]

Baltimore was never a Dynasty. The Steelers have had good teams and great Defenses since the early 90's but never won a SB until Big Ben. In fact, no teams has more SB than the Steelers and they have won all 6 with 2 different Qbs.

I think that with the correct additions, this Bills team can become good/fun to watch. The begging of last season was great. That being said, at out best, I still think we are a Cinderella story. We can be like the Colts with Jim Hargbough(sp?) at QB that almost upset the Steelers to go to SB XXX. The Colts did not become great until going 2-14 in 1998 and drafting P. Manning.

[YardRat]

Well, that's a new angle on the "Gaah! We need a franchise QB!!!" talking point.
Identify all of the ingredients that are supposedly necessary to win a championship and become a dynasty, then completely ignore them and focus on a single position.

[Johnny Bugmenot]

The other missing link: very weak competition in their division.

Do you think the Patriots would've won three straight Super Bowls had the Bills and Dolphins not tanked at exactly the same time?

Pittsburgh got their 1970s dynasty by getting into a division with expansion Cincinnati and Houston, a team that hadn't been good since the early 1960s.

During the 49ers dynasty, their division included the Falcons and Saints, hardly league powerhouses.

In order for the Bills to have a dynasty, the current dynasty (New England) must crumble first.

[Mike]

The other missing link: very weak competition in their division.

Do you think the Patriots would've won three straight Super Bowls had the Bills and Dolphins not tanked at exactly the same time?

Pittsburgh got their 1970s dynasty by getting into a division with expansion Cincinnati and Houston, a team that hadn't been good since the early 1960s.

During the 49ers dynasty, their division included the Falcons and Saints, hardly league powerhouses.

In order for the Bills to have a dynasty, the current dynasty (New England) must crumble first.


I can see how this makes life easier for the Dynasty however I don't see it as necessary. In the late 1980's early 1990's the Cowboys became a Dynasty by wining a number of SB. Their Division was Stacked, and not just by good teams, but great teams. The NFC East during the late 1980-mid 90's was great. They had 3 Super Bowls Champion Teams which all won at least 2 SB each during that time period. The Redskins won a SB in the late 80's and one against the Bills, the Giants won a SB in the late 80's and one against the Bills, and the Cowboys won 2 SB against the Bills and another later on. In a 3 year span (90-93) all three of these teams: Giants, Redskins, Cowboys won a SB. Now, thats one tough division.

[Figster]

I've been wanting a Franchise QB for so long, I'm argued out already, I keep telling ewveryone we need a franchise signal caller, but it would also be nice to train him for a year or two, before he becomes the starter,

You win OP, I wanted Brock Osweiler, I wanted Russel Wilson, good grief, even Kelen Moore, VY, pls football Gods. I'm even looking in places like young men fresh out of prision, which you guys rememebr the name Casey Therriault out of Jackson State, because one day he's going to shock the football world, with his story, and his QB play.

To say dog14787 is desperate for a good QB is an understatement...I have to go cry now...

[gonzo1105]

Lol I love the first post. So to have a dynasty team you have to have a great QB,great RB/WR, a great Oline, a great defense, and great coaching. This is like the no crap post of the year. This is like saying hey if you have great players everywhere you might have a dynasty. Last time I checked having a great QB,WR,RB,Oline,Defense,and coach is essentially your whole team

[NOT THE DUDE...]

get a great qb, and you got a chance...

its that simple...

[mightysimi]

Ingredients for a Dynasty:
1) Great QB: Without Questions all Dynasties had a Great Qb from Bart Star, to Bradshaw, to Montana, to Aikman, to Brady. All of these guys are Hall of Famers or future HOFs.
2) Great Lines: Defensive and Offensive Lines were top of league
3) WR/RB: In the early days they had great RB like Franco Harris, Roger Craig, E. Smith, Lin Swan, J. Rice, M. Irvin, recently Pats had Dillion, Walker, Moss, etc...
4) Great Defenses: Defenses that could pass rush, stop the run/pass, elite Ds. I feel that that is the difference between the Pats teams than one SB and the ones that lost SBs, defense.
5) Great Coaching: they had the premier coach of the era (B. Belicheck, J. Johnson, C. Noll, B. Walsh, V. Lombardi, T. Lombardi, etc.)
So Great Offence and Great Defence. Plus Great coaching. Is that all it takes? I don't know why more teams don't just do this then.

[Mike]

Lol I love the first post. So to have a dynasty team you have to have a great QB,great RB/WR, a great Oline, a great defense, and great coaching. This is like the no crap post of the year. This is like saying hey if you have great players everywhere you might have a dynasty. Last time I checked having a great QB,WR,RB,Oline,Defense,and coach is essentially your whole team


The point of the thread does not lie in the obviousness of what is necessary for a Dynasty but in what is left out. Unless, you are a Dynasty, or a SB winner how well you perform will be forgotten. There have been many great teams that failed to win, failed to get over the hump and are nothing more than a footnote in NFL history. Its even hard to remember the SB losers!

So what the point? Very simply that the goal of ownership should be to build a Dynasty, not nearly a 'contender'. The problem for the Bills over the past decade has been their mediocrity. They were never good enough to make the playoffs or bad enough to land the top talent, instead stuck in the middle. This is a good receipt for continuation of mediocrity or at best becoming a second tier contender -ala 1970's Vikings, 80's Broncos, 90's Bills, 2000's Eagles- never to win the Big Game and as a result being forgotten about... a mere footprint in NFL history.

Lastly, each decade has 1-2 such teams and all effort should be towards being one of those teams. Giving yourself the chance.

[Mike]

Moreover, I can think of a few teams that benefited greatly from complete failure and a few that are on their way. Of course, the opposite also exist where poor management continues to make poor personnel decision which lead to further mediocrity.

From Worst to First.
1960's: Steelers were the laughingstocks of the NFL during the 60's which lead to high draft picks year after year. After getting Chuck Noll, a great coach, talent evaluator, etc.... the 1970's Steelers turned all of those top picks into great football players and a Dynasty during the 1970's.
1970's: 49ers were the laughingstock of the NFL, no one thought his franchise would go on to win multiple SB's. Year after year they got top picks. In the 80's they hired Bill Walsh who quickly unitized the talent at hand drafted continued to draft impeccably. 49ers became the Dynasty of the 1980's
1980's: Cowboys become a joke in the late 80's and Landry left and the Boys could not badly win a game! Jimmy Johnson came in, used those top picks on E. Smith, Aikman, etc... and quickly created the Dynasty of the 90's.
1990's: Two teams come to mind. First the Rams were god awful. Year after year they drafted in the top 5 and continued to suck. Then after getting a good coach, Faulk, and talent via their top picks (like Orlando Pace) and a little luck -Kurt Warner- they become a dominant team in the late 90's early 2000s. They would go on to loose the a Pats team that was considered the 'most unprepared' for the new decade. One year after going 5-11 B. Belichick took this underdog to the dance a won! Soon after, the Pats became the Dynasty of the 2000's wining a total of 3 SBs in 4 years.

Other Notable Mentions:
Giants were a pretender before getting Manning. They have won 2SBs with him at QB.
Colts were a joke before getting Manning. During his tenure they were the winningest team in NFL history, regular season, and went on to win 1/2 SBs.
Steelers had a down year which won them 2SBs??? What? Yes, Steelers were fortunate enough to have a down year the year Big Ben declared leading them to draft him in the Top 10 after which he won 15 straight games in his rookie season and eventually led them to 3 SBs and 2 wins.
Lions: after being dreadful for decades they finally got the QB they needed with the first overall pick. After a few setbacks and injuries, Stafford threw for over 5k yards and took the Lions to the playoffs.

Moral of the Story:
Often times in history the Great were once the basement dwellers. There is enough statistical research to support the notion that it is better to completely tank and get a great QB prospect than to be mediocre. As it appears, the Colts have had 1 loosing season since 98 and as luck would have it, they were awful enough to draft a great QB prospect which can lead them to a decade of winning and a potential Dynasty. None of this would have been possible if they went 6-10.

[jamesiscool]

lets worry about making the playoffs first, that would be the logical place to start instead of worrying about building a dynasty.

[NOT THE DUDE...]

give me a good qb, doesnt have to be manning, but just give me romo, rivers, ryan...

and then draft pass rushers for days. you will 10 games every year and get into the playoffs. once in the playoffs, you got a legit shot.

pretty much the giants formula would be my plan...

[ThunderGun]

How to create a dynasty:

Step 1 - Have a winning record more than 1 time in 12 years.

[Pinkerton Security]

so all we need is a great QB, great offensive and defensive lines, good WR and RBs, a great defense and great coaching?? holy crap, what are we waiting for!!! why didnt someone else come up with this amazing magical formula years ago?!

[OpIv37]

I've been wanting a Franchise QB for so long, I'm argued out already, I keep telling ewveryone we need a franchise signal caller, but it would also be nice to train him for a year or two, before he becomes the starter,

You win OP, I wanted Brock Osweiler, I wanted Russel Wilson, good grief, even Kelen Moore, VY, pls football Gods. I'm even looking in places like young men fresh out of prision, which you guys rememebr the name Casey Therriault out of Jackson State, because one day he's going to shock the football world, with his story, and his QB play.

To say dog14787 is desperate for a good QB is an understatement...I have to go cry now...

Let's go down this road though: Who?

Other than Tom Brady (whom everyone in the NFL passed over for 5+ rounds, even Belicheck), what franchise QB could the Bills have drafted that we passed on? Or who could we have legitimately obtained in a trade/FA signing but failed? Franchise QB's are rare. It's easy to say we need one but not quite so easy to find one.

[ThunderGun]

Let's go down this road though: Who?

Other than Tom Brady (whom everyone in the NFL passed over for 5+ rounds, even Belicheck), what franchise QB could the Bills have drafted that we passed on? Or who could we have legitimately obtained in a trade/FA signing but failed? Franchise QB's are rare. It's easy to say we need one but not quite so easy to find one.
This.

It's easy to point the finger at the organization for not getting a stud QB, but they're not exactly growing on trees, and we haven't had a shot a drafting one, or picking on up in free agency.

Yes, we could give up a boatload of picks to trade up for one. But that wouldn't have worked this year, because Washington picked before us, so their picks were more attractive. And in other years, there really haven't been too many worth trading up for, IMO. Not when we have so many other needs.

This organization has made TONS of mistakes over the last decade, so I'm hesitant to defend them. Their draft picks have been pretty terrible, up until last year. So if we had given up boatloads of picks to move up for somebody, maybe we wouldn't have lost too much. But we can't give up before the draft, and take the attitude of "well, we're gonna blow all of our picks anyway, so we may as well trade them all".

If we have a look at a franchise QB, and we don't even try to get them, then I'll be one of the first ones here *****ing about it. But in the past, good QB's wouldn't haven't wanted to come here as free agents, and we didn't draft high enough to get one. Figures, the one year we have a top-3 pick, and there is only one sure-fire stud QB available (Newton).

But it's not like they haven't tried. They traded a 1st for Rob Johnson. It was a bust. It set us back several years, yet we tried again and traded a 1st for Bledsoe. That didn't work out (mostly because we refused to get any OLinemen), so we traded a 1st to move up for Losman. That didn't work, and it set us back a few more years. Now, it looks like we are building a solid nucleus of players. If we can go into next season with only a few holes to fill, then maybe we can trade a crapload of picks to move up for a stud QB. There should be a few good QB prospects next year.

[PTI]

So sick of the supposed hot start the Bills had. All team move the ball between the 20s. The 2 teams the Bills beat that were good were the Patriots and Eagles, and both games the deffense had 4 INTs and scored defensive TDs, no way Fitzpatrick leads them to wins without that. The case can be made that the defense won 4 of those 5 games. 2 games with 4 INTs, one game with 10 sacks, and another against KC was a completely depleted team who turned it over 3 teams and gave almost no fight at all. Let's be honest. the two losses were squarely on poor QB play too. Fitz led a nice win against Oakland, albeit against one of the worst pass coverage teams in the NFL.

[Extremebillsfan247]

Dynasties are a thing of the past. I've followed this game since the 70's. Past dynasties were that because players, and coaching staffs remained constants for longer periods of time than they do now. Too many changes happen in today's game during the off season for dynasties to happen anymore. It's not just players that change teams. Coaching staffs continually get broken up, with assistants moving on to other teams, or going back to the college ranks for more lucrative jobs.

In today's game you have at most 5 years per tenure to build your team for a run no matter who your QB is. It doesn't take long anymore before your already replacing staff members and veteran players. Even the Packers, Giants, and Patriots are not immune to that aspect of today's game. The teams that make it today, are the ones who can adjust to changes, and evolve the fastest. The ones who fail to adjust just don't succeed anymore no matter how many good players they have as the Eagles who built the so called super team found out. JMO

[Figster]

Let's go down this road though: Who?

Other than Tom Brady (whom everyone in the NFL passed over for 5+ rounds, even Belicheck), what franchise QB could the Bills have drafted that we passed on? Or who could we have legitimately obtained in a trade/FA signing but failed? Franchise QB's are rare. It's easy to say we need one but not quite so easy to find one.


Are we not supposed to try?When we have one of the best QB guru's in the league who could be turning middle round draft picks into gold as trade bait? seriously?

Naturally the verdicts still out on QB's drafted high so far through the current regime's tenure, and in recent years for that matter. Andy Dalton comes to mind as someone to watch in the future. Someone else I really liked, watch what Elway/Manning do with Big Brock Osweiler.

[justasportsfan]

Great Owner who can assemble a great front office. Everything else follows.

[OpIv37]

Are we not supposed to try?When we have one of the best QB guru's in the league who could be turning middle round draft picks into gold as trade bait? seriously?

Naturally the verdicts still out on QB's drafted high so far through the current regime's tenure, and in recent years for that matter. Andy Dalton comes to mind as someone to watch in the future. Someone else I really liked, watch what Elway/Manning do with Big Brock Osweiler.

But we did try. Todd Collins, Rob Johnson, Drew Bledsoe, JP Losman, Trent Edwards.... this team has made numerous attempts to rectify the QB situation since Kelly retired and none of them have worked.

Again, I'm not letting the org off the hook- it's their job to find the right guy and they invested a lot in some disastrous projects. They need to do better. But it's not accurate to say they aren't trying, as if the FO is sitting there going "there's no need for a franchise QB- we can live without one."

And I suppose we could have drafted Dalton last year, but then we'd be really ****ed at CB instead of just mostly ****ed at CB, and there's no guarantee that Dalton will be a franchise guy.

And I don't know much about Osweiler, but considering he went 16 picks after us, it would have been a little bit of a reach. We can't just **** over every other position on the team in a desperate attempt to grab a franchise QB.

[imbondz]

When you look at the NFL throughout the SuperBowl Era, one prominent feature of a champion comes across loud and clear. Most often, a team or two will dominate a decade they will be the perennial Superbowl winners, leaving all other 'conteders' to the relics of history. Often, only these winners are remembered, and those other contenders and their players are left behind as an asterisks on the bottom of a page, nothing more than a historical footnote. When you examine the qualities of Dynasties, a few prominent features become evident and from this study, one could see the ingredients necessary to build a Dynasty. Moreover, we can see which teams are on the horizon and destined for such glory.

Ingredients for a Dynasty:
1) Great QB: Without Questions all Dynasties had a Great Qb from Bart Star, to Bradshaw, to Montana, to Aikman, to Brady. All of these guys are Hall of Famers or future HOFs.
2) Great Lines: Defensive and Offensive Lines were top of league
3) WR/RB: In the early days they had great RB like Franco Harris, Roger Craig, E. Smith, Lin Swan, J. Rice, M. Irvin, recently Pats had Dillion, Walker, Moss, etc...
4) Great Defenses: Defenses that could pass rush, stop the run/pass, elite Ds. I feel that that is the difference between the Pats teams than one SB and the ones that lost SBs, defense.
5) Great Coaching: they had the premier coach of the era (B. Belicheck, J. Johnson, C. Noll, B. Walsh, V. Lombardi, T. Lombardi, etc.)


Teams on the Dynasty Horizon:
1. Green Bay: Have great QB, Coach, etc... already won a SB
2. Giants: Already won 2 SB, have future HOF QB/Coach, good WR, great D-Line
3. Eagles: great Coach, Defense, all comes down to QB.

Future Looks Bright:
4. Detroit: I know seems strange but they have a QB that threw over 5,000yards! Great WR, good coach, but their defense is awful. No matter, they have the key pieces of a champion: QB. Will they get the rest?
5. Carolina: Imagine if Cam improves? He was the best rookie QB of all time! If there is zero improvement in his game, he would already be a top Qb. With a little improvement he can be a great QB. The major piece is in place, improving the lines, and weapons is next, but they have time.
6. Colts/Redskins: They drafted best 2 QBs to come out in a decade. If these two guys are as good as advertised, look for them to become perennial contenders. See P. Manning's 12 winning season's as a reference point.
7. Cincinnati: they are getting many of the pieces and are a very young team. It will all come down to Dalton and Coaching.

Future Footnotes:
1. Atlanta: sure they have a QB, somehow he does not excite me the way a John Elway did. He reminds more more of a Drew Bledsoe type.
2. Baltimore: they might win a SB before its all said and done. for that they will be remembered but I do not see them becoming a Dynasty
3. Chargers: only if they had better coaching. The Qb is good, very good, maybe great but he is approaching 30 and time is running out. Don't see a Dynasty. If they change coaches, a SB might be possible but its too late for much more.
4. Houston: Day late and a dollar short. Are they a good team? Sure. Are they the next Dynasty? No
5. Dallas: don't see them wining a SB but anything is possible. they have talent, but no way they become a Dynasty.
6. 49ers: Simply, NO QB! Comes down to that and that alone. Secondly, I don't see how they get a HOF QB. They might win a SB sort of like the Ravens did in 2000, but that Ravens team never made it back to the big show.

Other SB Winners
1. Steelers: are 1/2 for SB in this decade, sure they might win another but that won't make them a Dynasty plus they are getting old.
2. Saints: won one SB and Brees is getting older. There is little time left to become a Dynasty, plus it looks like this year is already a loss.

How do the Bills Stack up?
QB: average: if the Bills are ever to become relevant, that is a Dynasty, they need a HOF QB.
Lines: Improving but not Dynasty Caliber
Wr/Rb: ""
Defense: bellow average
Coaching: avereage

Conclusion: Unless the Bills somehow land the next big Top QB, they virtually have no chance of becoming a Dynasty.

so the great insight is that a Dynasty has a HOF QB, a great coach, a great defensive line and offensive line, great WRs, and a great RB. How is that groundbreaking? I was hoping to see all great dynasties had tight ends with 3 syllable last names or something even more specific and insightful.

[ThunderGun]

But we did try. Todd Collins, Rob Johnson, Drew Bledsoe, JP Losman, Trent Edwards.... this team has made numerous attempts to rectify the QB situation since Kelly retired and none of them have worked.

Again, I'm not letting the org off the hook- it's their job to find the right guy and they invested a lot in some disastrous projects. They need to do better. But it's not accurate to say they aren't trying, as if the FO is sitting there going "there's no need for a franchise QB- we can live without one."

And I suppose we could have drafted Dalton last year, but then we'd be really ****ed at CB instead of just mostly ****ed at CB, and there's no guarantee that Dalton will be a franchise guy.

And I don't know much about Osweiler, but considering he went 16 picks after us, it would have been a little bit of a reach. We can't just **** over every other position on the team in a desperate attempt to grab a franchise QB.

Right. You can get a great young QB, but they can't do it alone. Look at Sam Bradford. The Rams didn't even have to trade up to get him, but they stick him on a crappy team and, guess what...they're still crappy.

My thinking has always been....if you are going to draft a QB, why not build the rest of the team around the QB position first, especially the OLine, because you don't want your QB to get killed. Then you can put this rookie QB into a great situation. In this era of free agency, teams don't want to let a QB sit on the bench for a year or two before starting them. If they're contract is only for 4-5 years, they can't afford to waste 1-2 of them. So get the rest of the team right, and then get your QB.

[Extremebillsfan247]

But we did try. Todd Collins, Rob Johnson, Drew Bledsoe, JP Losman, Trent Edwards.... this team has made numerous attempts to rectify the QB situation since Kelly retired and none of them have worked.

Again, I'm not letting the org off the hook- it's their job to find the right guy and they invested a lot in some disastrous projects. They need to do better. But it's not accurate to say they aren't trying, as if the FO is sitting there going "there's no need for a franchise QB- we can live without one."

And I suppose we could have drafted Dalton last year, but then we'd be really ****ed at CB instead of just mostly ****ed at CB, and there's no guarantee that Dalton will be a franchise guy.

And I don't know much about Osweiler, but considering he went 16 picks after us, it would have been a little bit of a reach. We can't just **** over every other position on the team in a desperate attempt to grab a franchise QB. That's right. But here is why in my opinion, teams can be great without great QB's, but great QB's are rarely ever great without them. Only a healthy Peyton Manning, and Tom Brady are exceptions to that rule in this genre. But like I said, just my opinion.

[Figster]

But we did try. Todd Collins, Rob Johnson, Drew Bledsoe, JP Losman, Trent Edwards.... this team has made numerous attempts to rectify the QB situation since Kelly retired and none of them have worked.

Again, I'm not letting the org off the hook- it's their job to find the right guy and they invested a lot in some disastrous projects. They need to do better. But it's not accurate to say they aren't trying, as if the FO is sitting there going "there's no need for a franchise QB- we can live without one."

And I suppose we could have drafted Dalton last year, but then we'd be really ****ed at CB instead of just mostly ****ed at CB, and there's no guarantee that Dalton will be a franchise guy.

And I don't know much about Osweiler, but considering he went 16 picks after us, it would have been a little bit of a reach. We can't just **** over every other position on the team in a desperate attempt to grab a franchise QB.

I see some points to your argument , we have holes and no depth, I get it ,but good football teams never stop on their quest to upgrade the QB position, especially when your HC specializes in QB's. Look what Elway did, after bringing in Peyton, I'm sure he had more pressing needs. So you can't tell me we couldn't have given up just one of our picks to upgrade the position.

Russell Wilson was also there in a later round and we should have drafted him...

[gonzo1105]

I see some points to your argument , we have holes and no depth, I get it ,but good football teams never stop on their quest to upgrade the QB position, especially when your HC specializes in QB's. Look what Elway did, after bringing in Peyton, I'm sure he had more pressing needs. So you can't tell me we couldn't have given up just one of our picks to upgrade the position.

Russell Wilson was also there in a later round and we should have drafted him...

Name me one QB who went on to become a franchise QB at 5"11 or under?

[OpIv37]

Right. You can get a great young QB, but they can't do it alone. Look at Sam Bradford. The Rams didn't even have to trade up to get him, but they stick him on a crappy team and, guess what...they're still crappy.

My thinking has always been....if you are going to draft a QB, why not build the rest of the team around the QB position first, especially the OLine, because you don't want your QB to get killed. Then you can put this rookie QB into a great situation. In this era of free agency, teams don't want to let a QB sit on the bench for a year or two before starting them. If they're contract is only for 4-5 years, they can't afford to waste 1-2 of them. So get the rest of the team right, and then get your QB.

That was a big part of the Bills' problem for the last decade. We traded for Bledsoe- the last of the pure pocket passers- but never gave him an OL. Then we threw Losman behind the same crap OL. Meanwhile the D went to ****, which put more pressure on the O....

Again, not to defend these guys because they all had their own shortcomings and failures, but the team never really committed to them.

Right now, our OL needs help and the D is a work in progress, and we have no true #2 WR. If we got a new QB, we'd be throwing him to the wolves again while he attempted to learn the NFL.

[justasportsfan]

we could have done well with Bledsoe if we didn't have a GM back then whose ego was too big to bring in an experienced high profiled Head coach. Instead Donahoe brought in Mularkey and Greghead who would say yes to his every desire.

[Figster]

Name me one QB who went on to become a franchise QB at 5"11 or under?

You do however realize Russell Wilson may have been a good upgrade over Thigpen once he learned the offense though right?

[YardRat]

Super Bowl 'Dynasties' and their QB's...

Green Bay-Bart Starr-drafted 17th round.
Miami-Bob Griese-drafted first round*
Pittsburgh-Terry Bradshaw-drafted first round*
*Granted, both were first rounders, but anybody that doesn't acknowledge their teams were built around a running game, offensive line and defense, I can't help you.
San Francisco-Joe Montana-drafted third round
Dallas-Troy Aikman-drafted first round**
**See Pittsburgh and Miami above.
New England-Tom Brady-drafted in sixth round.

[Beebe's Kid]

I thought Peyton Manning was considered the best of the best, and the Colts can't be called a dynasty. I think this argument is a little tainted.

It is inverse of a baseball team, but the same concept...you can spread talent throughout a lineup, but you need a stud pitching staff to win, because you can't do that if you don't score more than the other team, and the probability goes up the less runs you surrender. The pitcher analogy is, as I stated, inverse, but it is the only position where the play of a single member of the team can either propel or sink the team.

If you have a QB who knows the importance of keeping a good D off of the field and fresh, and is able to get the team to the endzone to boot, you stand a much better chance, but doesn't that just make sense?

The thing that seems to kind of be lacking is the ability to manage the clock. That is more important than many seem to indicate. If you are up, you need to be able to waste some clock, not go 3 and out and give the other team the ball right back. You also need to be able to score quickly if you are trailing late in the game, but the most important would be the ability to keep your D fresh. If you go out and score on 5 plays, or go three and out, you aren't giving your D time to recuperate, and you're asking for trouble.

It is the league of the QB now, but there are important aspects to ball control that you can never completely discount, and you need to maintain to win. I am sure there are the exceptions that everybody can point out, but the dynasties all had an effective ground game.

[Mike]

Let's go down this road though: Who?

Other than Tom Brady (whom everyone in the NFL passed over for 5+ rounds, even Belicheck), what franchise QB could the Bills have drafted that we passed on? Or who could we have legitimately obtained in a trade/FA signing but failed? Franchise QB's are rare. It's easy to say we need one but not quite so easy to find one.

Its almost like a mystical phenomena. Steve Nash use to talk about how the "ball" finds the best player and vice versus. I think the same principle applies here. The best coaches and talent evaluators attract, find, develop, the best players... Its happened in each Dynasty. It almost happened in Buffalo, with Kelly and the rest of the Bills HOF.

Now, one of the commonalities between Dynasties is they they were atrocious the decade before. Each one went from a poor team to become a great team. Each one had a change in the top positions: coach/Gm. I don't think this is mere coincidence.

Lastly, it seems that the majority of the next elite class of QB has been drafted on on teams: Cam Newton, Stafford, Rogers, etc... while the old crew: Brees, Manning, Brady are aging. Soon there will be a changing of the guard. Unfortunately, the Bills do not seem to be one of those teams. This leads to the conclusions, that if the Bills are not one of those teams, then winning a SB over the next decade is highly unlikely. I strongly feel that a team needs to bottom out completely, before being able to go from worst to first. The Bills never bottomed out, instead they were mediocre.

[Mike]

Let's go down this road though: Who?

Other than Tom Brady (whom everyone in the NFL passed over for 5+ rounds, even Belicheck), what franchise QB could the Bills have drafted that we passed on? Or who could we have legitimately obtained in a trade/FA signing but failed? Franchise QB's are rare. It's easy to say we need one but not quite so easy to find one.

They did try.... but they were lacking in Talent Evaluation. Who could they have drafted:
1. Dolton: last year many thought the Bills would draft him
2. Rogers: late first
3. Brees: 2nd rounder
etc...

This is also all so irrelevant because hindsight is 20/20. In order to beat the averages, beat the 20/20 hindsight, you need a top coach/gm, talent evaluator, you need the next hot coach, the next Belichick, the next Walsh, etc...

* I have always like the way Bill Parcels was able to quickly turn franchises around. He was a great coach, talent evaluator, etc...*

[Mike]

I thought Peyton Manning was considered the best of the best, and the Colts can't be called a dynasty. I think this argument is a little tainted.


He was. Kind of like Marino except he won a SB. It goes to show that its more than just a QB...

[SABURZFAN]

When you look at the NFL throughout the SuperBowl Era, one prominent feature of a champion comes across loud and clear. Most often, a team or two will dominate a decade they will be the perennial Superbowl winners, leaving all other 'conteders' to the relics of history. Often, only these winners are remembered, and those other contenders and their players are left behind as an asterisks on the bottom of a page, nothing more than a historical footnote. When you examine the qualities of Dynasties, a few prominent features become evident and from this study, one could see the ingredients necessary to build a Dynasty. Moreover, we can see which teams are on the horizon and destined for such glory.

Ingredients for a Dynasty:
1) Great QB: Without Questions all Dynasties had a Great Qb from Bart Star, to Bradshaw, to Montana, to Aikman, to Brady. All of these guys are Hall of Famers or future HOFs.
2) Great Lines: Defensive and Offensive Lines were top of league
3) WR/RB: In the early days they had great RB like Franco Harris, Roger Craig, E. Smith, Lin Swan, J. Rice, M. Irvin, recently Pats had Dillion, Walker, Moss, etc...
4) Great Defenses: Defenses that could pass rush, stop the run/pass, elite Ds. I feel that that is the difference between the Pats teams than one SB and the ones that lost SBs, defense.
5) Great Coaching: they had the premier coach of the era (B. Belicheck, J. Johnson, C. Noll, B. Walsh, V. Lombardi, T. Lombardi, etc.)


Teams on the Dynasty Horizon:
1. Green Bay: Have great QB, Coach, etc... already won a SB
2. Giants: Already won 2 SB, have future HOF QB/Coach, good WR, great D-Line
3. Eagles: great Coach, Defense, all comes down to QB.

Future Looks Bright:
4. Detroit: I know seems strange but they have a QB that threw over 5,000yards! Great WR, good coach, but their defense is awful. No matter, they have the key pieces of a champion: QB. Will they get the rest?
5. Carolina: Imagine if Cam improves? He was the best rookie QB of all time! If there is zero improvement in his game, he would already be a top Qb. With a little improvement he can be a great QB. The major piece is in place, improving the lines, and weapons is next, but they have time.
6. Colts/Redskins: They drafted best 2 QBs to come out in a decade. If these two guys are as good as advertised, look for them to become perennial contenders. See P. Manning's 12 winning season's as a reference point.
7. Cincinnati: they are getting many of the pieces and are a very young team. It will all come down to Dalton and Coaching.

Future Footnotes:
1. Atlanta: sure they have a QB, somehow he does not excite me the way a John Elway did. He reminds more more of a Drew Bledsoe type.
2. Baltimore: they might win a SB before its all said and done. for that they will be remembered but I do not see them becoming a Dynasty
3. Chargers: only if they had better coaching. The Qb is good, very good, maybe great but he is approaching 30 and time is running out. Don't see a Dynasty. If they change coaches, a SB might be possible but its too late for much more.
4. Houston: Day late and a dollar short. Are they a good team? Sure. Are they the next Dynasty? No
5. Dallas: don't see them wining a SB but anything is possible. they have talent, but no way they become a Dynasty.
6. 49ers: Simply, NO QB! Comes down to that and that alone. Secondly, I don't see how they get a HOF QB. They might win a SB sort of like the Ravens did in 2000, but that Ravens team never made it back to the big show.

Other SB Winners
1. Steelers: are 1/2 for SB in this decade, sure they might win another but that won't make them a Dynasty plus they are getting old.
2. Saints: won one SB and Brees is getting older. There is little time left to become a Dynasty, plus it looks like this year is already a loss.

How do the Bills Stack up?
QB: average: if the Bills are ever to become relevant, that is a Dynasty, they need a HOF QB.
Lines: Improving but not Dynasty Caliber
Wr/Rb: ""
Defense: bellow average
Coaching: avereage

Conclusion: Unless the Bills somehow land the next big Top QB, they virtually have no chance of becoming a Dynasty.


doesn't say anything about extending contracts to RBs who are over 30 either.

[thenry20]

IMO to build a dynasty you need the best OL/DL lines in the league, a very good RB/running game and the #1 D. Everything else will take care of itself.

To call Terry Bradshaw a "great" QB is overstating things a bit. I don't hate him and even he'll tell you that he doesn't belong in the HOF.

The Bucs and Ravens won w/o stellar QB'a on their teams. Yes, I know the discussion is about dynasties not SB winning teams.

[Mr. Miyagi]

Teams on the Dynasty Horizon:
3. Eagles: great Coach, Defense, all comes down to QB.

This is where your article lost all credibility with me.

[Mike]

This is where your article lost all credibility with me.


They were the cliche pick a year ago. If, and thats a very big if, the Vick plays to his potential I can see the Eagles wining a back to back SBs, maybe 3in5yrs. Eagles are a stretch but they have a good core, and a QB who is young enough to have enough opportunities/season to try to put together a consistant winner. Overall, the Eagles are a big stretch, but have an outside shot none the less.

[NOT THE DUDE...]

IMO to build a dynasty you need the best OL/DL lines in the league, a very good RB/running game and the #1 D. Everything else will take care of itself.

To call Terry Bradshaw a "great" QB is overstating things a bit. I don't hate him and even he'll tell you that he doesn't belong in the HOF.

The Bucs and Ravens won w/o stellar QB'a on their teams. Yes, I know the discussion is about dynasties not SB winning teams.

you know i would push this even further... now please, before i say this, this does not mean you dont need a competent good qb. but you dont need a brady/manning/marino....

take the 85-90 giants... their qb play was just solid...

take the theisman redskind teams or any 80s redskins teams, again, solid qb play, nothing crazy...

i agree, bradshaw was a good, not great qb...

i think the greatest example of where you can build a dynasty with a simple game manager is the early 90s cowboys. aikman really struggled his first 3 years and was almost traded... yet they won 3 sbs... he was a smart, solid qb.

1- all you need is a qb who is qood. someone like a rich gannon, doug flutie, jim mcmahon, testaverde, phil simms, fitzpatrick etc...

2- pass rush, pass rush, pass rush, and take dlineman high in the draft... this is by far the most important factor outside of getting a solid qb. watch sb 27 or the 07 giants vs pats superbowl, and you will realize how important a great pass rush is. a great pass rush will cover mistakes/talent deficiencies. a great pass rush will shut down any great offense.

3- throw a dart at any other pick/position for all i care... as long as you are average here it doesnt matter.

[ThunderGun]

They did try.... but they were lacking in Talent Evaluation. Who could they have drafted:
1. Dolton: last year many thought the Bills would draft him
2. Rogers: late first
3. Brees: 2nd rounder
etc...

1 - Dalton - The jury is still out on him, but he did look pretty good last year. I can't say he looked like a stud coming out of college though. I wouldn't have passed on Dareus for him, and I wouldn't have traded down from the only top-5 pick we've had in a long time.

2 - Rodgers - We didn't have a 1st round pick in 2005, when he was drafted (because they traded it to move up for JP the year before).

3 - Brees - C'mon....that's like saying Peyton. We all know that Brees wasn't gonna come to Buffalo. He had his pick of any franchise in need of a QB. We were probably right next to Oakland, at the bottom of his list.

[SABURZFAN]

having a cheap owner doesn't help to build a dynasty either. :(

[stuckincincy]

1 - Dalton - The jury is still out on him, but he did look pretty good last year. I can't say he looked like a stud coming out of college though. I wouldn't have passed on Dareus for him, and I wouldn't have traded down from the only top-5 pick we've had in a long time.



Inside item on Dalton - in my viewing, they cut back their playbook mid-season as he was beginning to be sniffed out as the rookie was. The roll-out stuff diminished. No sense in putting him in harm's way in his learning season.

CIN certainly backed into the playoffs - IIRC, they had to have several teams lose in week #15. They got in, had a fair 1st half, then HOU spanked them. Poor coaching/playcalling on both sides of the ball comtributed.

[PTI]

you know i would push this even further... now please, before i say this, this does not mean you dont need a competent good qb. but you dont need a brady/manning/marino....

take the 85-90 giants... their qb play was just solid...

take the theisman redskind teams or any 80s redskins teams, again, solid qb play, nothing crazy...

i agree, bradshaw was a good, not great qb...

i think the greatest example of where you can build a dynasty with a simple game manager is the early 90s cowboys. aikman really struggled his first 3 years and was almost traded... yet they won 3 sbs... he was a smart, solid qb.

1- all you need is a qb who is qood. someone like a rich gannon, doug flutie, jim mcmahon, testaverde, phil simms, fitzpatrick etc...

2- pass rush, pass rush, pass rush, and take dlineman high in the draft... this is by far the most important factor outside of getting a solid qb. watch sb 27 or the 07 giants vs pats superbowl, and you will realize how important a great pass rush is. a great pass rush will cover mistakes/talent deficiencies. a great pass rush will shut down any great offense.

3- throw a dart at any other pick/position for all i care... as long as you are average here it doesnt matter.
Phil Simms was very good from 85-90

Year QB rating rank
85 11
86 13
87 3
88 8
89 10
90 4

Phil Simms will make the HOF some day. Without a doubt a top 10 QB in his era. To put him in a bucket with guys you did is just freaking stupid, shows no real sense.

To address the first guy, Brad Johnson was just about league MVP that ONE season, 3rd in QB rating overall and had 22 TDs and 6 INTs, he without a doubt, at least for that season, was and played elite.

Even the best defense ever, the 85 Bears had the 7th overall rated QB that season in McMahon.

If your QB plays bad, history tells you basically you have a very small chance for success, and little for the SUper Bowl.

[YardRat]

Phil Simms was very good from 85-90

Year QB rating rank
85 11
86 13
87 3
88 8
89 10
90 4

Phil Simms will make the HOF some day. Without a doubt a top 10 QB in his era. To put him in a bucket with guys you did is just freaking stupid, shows no real sense.

To address the first guy, Brad Johnson was just about league MVP that ONE season, 3rd in QB rating overall and had 22 TDs and 6 INTs, he without a doubt, at least for that season, was and played elite.

Even the best defense ever, the 85 Bears had the 7th overall rated QB that season in McMahon.

If your QB plays bad, history tells you basically you have a very small chance for success, and little for the SUper Bowl.

A really good defense and offensive line, especially when couple with a decent running game, will help make the QB look good.

Other than that, here are Rob Johnson's comparative stats...

Year QB Rating Rank
1998----3 (102.9)
1999----1 (119.5)
2000----14(82.2)

[PTI]

A really good defense and offensive line, especially when couple with a decent running game, will help make the QB look good.

Other than that, here are Rob Johnson's comparative stats...

Year QB Rating Rank
1998----3 (102.9)
1999----1 (119.5)
2000----14(82.2)

Johnson had 1 start in 1999 and 6 in 1998 and did not come close to qualifying for league rankings, nice try. He did however have the Bills in position to win a playoff game to the team that lost the Super Bowl by 1 yard and led the league in defense if not for the Music City Miracle.

Again,another failure to see the point. You need a god QB to win, or a QB to at least play well that season. I agree with other points people make, never disagreed that it takes much more, like a decent defense, but if your QB plays bad you likely will not win.

You fail big time in logic.

[YardRat]

Johnson had 1 start in 1999 and 6 in 1998 and did not come close to qualifying for league rankings, nice try. He did however have the Bills in position to win a playoff game to the team that lost the Super Bowl by 1 yard and led the league in defense if not for the Music City Miracle.

Again,another failure to see the point. You need a god QB to win, or a QB to at least play well that season. I agree with other points people make, never disagreed that it takes much more, like a decent defense, but if your QB plays bad you likely will not win.

You fail big time in logic.

Simms played only 9 games in '87, ironically also his highest ranking according to your post (3).

If you want to base an argument on bull****, than you should expect bull**** back.

[NOT THE DUDE...]

Phil Simms was very good from 85-90

Year QB rating rank
85 11
86 13
87 3
88 8
89 10
90 4

Phil Simms will make the HOF some day. Without a doubt a top 10 QB in his era. To put him in a bucket with guys you did is just freaking stupid, shows no real sense.

To address the first guy, Brad Johnson was just about league MVP that ONE season, 3rd in QB rating overall and had 22 TDs and 6 INTs, he without a doubt, at least for that season, was and played elite.

Even the best defense ever, the 85 Bears had the 7th overall rated QB that season in McMahon.

If your QB plays bad, history tells you basically you have a very small chance for success, and little for the SUper Bowl.

phil simms is not a hof qb. no ****ing way man. but he was solid. they also had a d for the ages and a oline for the ages that parcells built. that made simms look better than he was.

and for christs sake, the reason mcmahon was ranked so high that season is because the d would give them the ball at the 50 every possesion, hell even closer in the opponents terrirtory. they had 70+ sacks and tons of turnovers...

the point here is you dont need a franchise qb, you just need a good qb.

[NOT THE DUDE...]

****ing todd collins could have been the qb of the 85 bears and they would have still won the superbowl.

come on man... really?

thats probably the greatest team of all time...

again, really?

[PTI]

Simms played only 9 games in '87, ironically also his highest ranking according to your post (3).

If you want to base an argument on bull****, than you should expect bull**** back.

So he was not top 10 regardless of that season, you really want to pick just one of those? You are a complete failure at logic, a 6 year run by a Super Bowl MVP QB compared to 18 starts over 3 seasons for Johnson, no way you have any type of a position that really requires intellectual thought and comparison.

[YardRat]

So he was not top 10 regardless of that season, you really want to pick just one of those? You are a complete failure at logic, a 6 year run by a Super Bowl MVP QB compared to 18 starts over 3 seasons for Johnson, no way you have any type of a position that really requires intellectual thought and comparison.
Anybody that uses stats, especially quarterback ratings, has no room to throw stones about intellectual thought.

Phil Simms = Brad Johnson.

Oh, but wait. Phil Simms was sooooo good that when he went down with an injury his back-up QB'd the team to a Super Bowl win. If that doesn't flick the light bulb on for you, nothing will.

Dude, you have use Phil Simms, Brad Johnson and Jim McMahon to try and prove your point. Game over.

[Syderick]

To have a good dynasty, you need to keep players on the team for 3-6 years instead of revolving door. A Good Defense, decent RB and WR, and at least a solid game manager QB to win.