Jump to content

Pro Football Outsiders all time Dynasty rankings


TecmoSuperJoe

Recommended Posts

This was an interesting exercise conducted by PFO the last couple of months. It's broken down in 6 parts, and conducted through a unique point ranking system. Of course that is purely subjective in itself, but still very interesting to me as a way to try and connect the dominant run of teams across eras. There were some teams I was even surprised that didn't even make it via their formula, which I thought was pretty fair overall and gave teams that didn't bring home a title to be included for at least recognition. Here is how their experiment was conducted in detail:

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2020/dynasty-rankings-defining-dynasty

Here are the 56 teams that qualified broken down in 6 sections: 

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2020/dynasty-rankings-part-i-bottom-six

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2020/dynasty-rankings-part-ii-nos-41-50

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2020/dynasty-rankings-part-iii-nos-31-40

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2020/dynasty-rankings-part-iv-nos-21-30

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2020/dynasty-rankings-part-v-nos-11-20

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2020/dynasty-rankings-part-vi-top-ten

But for the ultra lazy (which I know makes up most of you) here is a chart that conveniently depicts everything, giving you just enough information to either grown, feel indifferent, or smile with glee before sharing your thoughts and/or going about the rest of your day in the microwave era that we live in :)

Dynasties-1-56.png

Overall, I have to commend Bryan Knowles for doing an excellent write up for all of the teams involved. This took a long time to do, and it was worth the read. I didn't read every blurb on every team, but I read a lot of them. I don't know, this is my wheelhouse, and I know comparing eras in any shape or form isn't for everybody because it mostly relies on idle speculation to such a large extent with way too many variables to even make it worth the effort. With those pitfalls in place, PFO did as good a job as anyone could have asked for I'd say. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

teams on that list that can keep getting points are the 01-19 pats and 2015-19 Chiefs

the 17-19 saints could be knocking on the door with another 10+ win season. I hope he updates this list annually

Edited by August4th
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the Steelers, they should have made it 1972-84, not 72-79. The 1982-84 teams made the playoffs with the same coach and a fair amount of the same players. In my opinion, the 1982 team could have made it to the SB if they don't lose in the first round, and the 1984 team made the AFC Title Game.

Edited by 7DnBrnc53
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hard to fathom why they would have limited the Gibbs era Redskins “dynasty” to 1982-1987. They continued to be excellent for another 4 seasons, to the tune of a 41-23 combined record with two playoff appearances, which culminated in another Super Bowl won in 1991 by the best team in franchise (and arguably league) history.

If they took the 1982-1991 Redskins, I suspect the Gibbs era dynasty would rank much higher (as it should). 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I decided to follow up a bit more on that issue, and remove myself from the ranks of what the OP @TecmoSuperJoe labeled the “ultra lazy,” and I read the full entry for the Gibbs era Redskins. 

It appears that by the parameters they set, the 80s Redskins dynasty ended in 1987 because they missed the playoffs in consecutive years (1988 and 1989). They were legitimately mediocre in 1988 (7-9), but it’s a little lame to eliminate them based on missing the playoffs in 1989 — they were 10-6 with a +78 point differential. It just so happened that they missed the playoffs because the NFC was particularly top-heavy that season and their division was stacked at the top (12-4 Eagles and 11-5 Giants). And under the current playoff system, they would have made the playoffs as the #6 seed. 

They then made the playoffs (at 10-6 again) in 1990 and were the most dominant team in the world in 1991. It just seems odd and arbitrary to eliminate them because they had a mediocre season followed by a flukish 10-6 non-playoff season. But I get it — when you’re doing studies of that magnitude, you can’t be making exceptions for particular cases, the rules have to be the rules. 

To the author’s credit, he did run the Redskins as a dynasty from 1982-1991 for informational purposes, as he discussed in their individual entry. Evidently, that would put them right on the brink of the top 10, right about on par with the 90s Cowboys and the 2010s Seahawks. That sounds about right. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, 7DnBrnc53 said:

For the Steelers, they should have made it 1972-84, not 72-79. The 1982-84 teams made the playoffs with the same coach and a fair amount of the same players. In my opinion, the 1982 team could have made it to the SB if they don't lose in the first round, and the 1984 team made the AFC Title Game.

But that doesn't work for this formula because they missed the playoffs two years in a row. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm surprised the 1979-1982 Chargers didn't make it. The 1987-1993 Oilers also, but I can get behind that a little more since they never even made a championship game, and only have two division titles despite going to the postseason 7 straight years. But the cutoff was at least 10 dynasty points. Probably just missed the cut. 

Edited by TecmoSuperJoe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/13/2020 at 7:05 PM, TecmoSuperJoe said:

But that doesn't work for this formula because they missed the playoffs two years in a row. 

I see. That's too rigid, though, especially because they made the playoffs the next three years with a fair amount of the same players that were in those SB's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/16/2020 at 6:50 AM, 7DnBrnc53 said:

I see. That's too rigid, though, especially because they made the playoffs the next three years with a fair amount of the same players that were in those SB's.

Eh I’ve seen this board be far more rigid in describing dynasties than this guy 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...