2023 Season | Super Bowl LVIII 49ers @ Chiefs| Gameday Chatter Thread | 2/11/2024

[data]

Aaron Schatz also source of a small controversy as he revealed he’s the lone voter that prevented Lamar Jackson from winning unanimous League MVP, voting Josh Allen first, Dak Prescott second and Lamar Jackson third.

He was surprised his was the only non 1st place vote. As basis for his vote, he looked at many metrics beyond his own DVOA (PFF, ESPN QBR, SIS, EPA) and they all ranked Josh Allen and Prescott above Lamar.

He also mentioned oddities as other voters gave 1st place Lamar Jackson MVP votes, but not for All-Pro 1st team.

Lone Voter Who Snubbed Lamar Jackson for NFL MVP Explains His Ballot - Sports Illustrated

Aaron Schatz carefully laid out the case for his against-the-grain pick.

www.si.com

 

[data]

 

[ravidubey]

I care about what the already accepted definition should be.

Which is entirely subjective, not to mention not officially defined by anyone!

I hadn't realized the Raiders went to 9 conference championships in 11 years including their Superbowl victory.

That is a very long period of dominance. If only one could come up with a term for that .

The Bills went to five AFCC's in six years and won nothing. That's well below the threshold set with the other teams and with zero championships. Sorry, good, but nothing close to a dynasty.

And I'd say dynasties could co-exist so long as they are consistently playing in conference championships and winning some Superbowls along the way.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Aaron Schatz also source of a small controversy as he revealed he’s the lone voter that prevented Lamar Jackson from winning unanimous League MVP, voting Josh Allen first, Dak Prescott second and Lamar Jackson third.

Good for him. Can only imagine how badly he's being shamed right now for not going along with the herd.

 

[Genghis Khan]

Which is entirely subjective, not to mention not officially defined by anyone!

Yes it's subjective, but there's also parameters around it that are entirely objective.

For example, everyone would agree that a team that doesn't make the playoffs at all for a decade is not a dynasty. A team that wins no championships in a given time period is not a dynasty.

There are absolutely objective parameters and you can't just arbitrarily change those things if you want to be taken seriously.

Longevity matters but it's not the only thing and not even the most important thing. That's not subjective in any real sense.

Also, you can't contradict yourself. You can't say that a 5 year stretch where a team won 3 championships (90s Cowboys) is "barely" a dynasty but then not say the same about a team that also won 3 in a five year stretch (KC) and also a team that won 4 in 6 (Pittsburgh).

Hell, even if you won 3 in 3 years and nothing else, that's a dynasty. Longevity factors in generally, but the championships are the most important thing. If you disagree with that, remind me again how many teams in the super bowl era have done it? None? Oh. It might be a short dynasty but it's a dynasty nonetheless.

That is a very long period of dominance. If only one could come up with a term for that .

That's an awfully loose definition of 'dominance' when the team won once.

All I know is the word isn't dynasty. Just like it's not the word that describes Buffalo.

And I'd say dynasties could co-exist so long as they are consistently playing in conference championships and winning some Superbowls along the way.

I agree with this.

 

[NoDak]

When Dallas was known as 'next years champion' it was because they were always close, but never quite getting the win that mattered. Should they be considered a dynasty because they were always close?

No.

 

[bbgun]

That is a very long period of dominance. If only one could come up with a term for that

Consistent winner? Well-run organization?

 

[ravidubey]

Also, you can't contradict yourself. You can't say that a 5 year stretch where a team won 3 championships (90s Cowboys) is "barely" a dynasty but then not say the same about a team that also won 3 in a five year stretch (KC) and also a team that won 4 in 6 (Pittsburgh).

Reid’s Chiefs have been to six AFCC’s in a row capping nine playoff seasons in a row and 10 of 11 and won three Superbowls. The Steelers went to the playoffs eight years in a row, six conference championships, and won four Superbowls. Dallas went to the playoffs six years in a row, four straight NFCC’s and won three Superbowls.

You can rank these any way you want, but the 90’s Cowboys come up on the bottom by sheer numbers alone, championships being equal, as they went to fewer conference championships and had fewer overall years in the playoffs.

Do I think the Cowboys were the deepest, most talented, and most dominating team I’ve ever seen during their dominant stretch? Of course. They won their Superbowls by 35, 17, and 10 points and were led by a talented, HOF QB. They just flamed out faster and score lowest on the longevity scale.

Hell, even if you won 3 in 3 years and nothing else, that's a dynasty. Longevity factors in generally, but the championships are the most important thing. If you disagree with that, remind me again how many teams in the super bowl era have done it? None? Oh. It might be a short dynasty but it's a dynasty nonetheless.

My out-of-my-ass rubric scores like:

Dynasties produce two or more Superbowl wins (score 3 for each win, 4 if by double-digits, 1 for each appearance)
Dynasties compete in four or more conference championships (score .5 for each appearance)
Dynasties compete in the playoffs for at least six years in a row (majority of a decade, score 1)
Dynasties don’t miss the playoffs more than one year.
Dynasties end at a losing season

A score of 11 qualifies as a dynasty (because dynasties go to 11).

By that measure, the 80’s-90’s Bills score 8– no dice. Steelers score 17. 90’s Cowboys score 15. Landry Cowboys with their 12 conference games 2 dominant SB wins and three appearances score 18. Raiders score 10.5 and miss the multiple Super Bowl win criteria. Chiefs are at 14.

 

[data]

My out-of-my-ass rubric scores like:

Never go full out-of-ass

3 points for SB win, but 1 point for loss?
Bucs fans prefer their one win over 49ers three losses

 

[Genghis Khan]

Reid’s Chiefs have been to six AFCC’s in a row capping nine playoff seasons in a row and 10 of 11 and won three Superbowls. The Steelers went to the playoffs eight years in a row, six conference championships, and won four Superbowls. Dallas went to the playoffs six years in a row, four straight NFCC’s and won three Superbowls.

You can rank these any way you want, but the 90’s Cowboys come up on the bottom by sheer numbers alone, championships being equal, as they went to fewer conference championships and had fewer overall years in the playoffs.

Do I think the Cowboys were the deepest, most talented, and most dominating team I’ve ever seen during their dominant stretch? Of course. They won their Superbowls by 35, 17, and 10 points and were led by a talented, HOF QB. They just flamed out faster and score lowest on the longevity scale.



My out-of-my-ass rubric scores like:

Dynasties produce two or more Superbowl wins (score 3 for each win, 4 if by double-digits, 1 for each appearance)
Dynasties compete in four or more conference championships (score .5 for each appearance)
Dynasties compete in the playoffs for at least six years in a row (majority of a decade, score 1)
Dynasties don’t miss the playoffs more than one year.
Dynasties end at a losing season

A score of 11 qualifies as a dynasty (because dynasties go to 11).

By that measure, the 80’s-90’s Bills score 8– no dice. Steelers score 17. 90’s Cowboys score 15. Landry Cowboys with their 12 conference games 2 dominant SB wins and three appearances score 18. Raiders score 10.5 and miss the multiple Super Bowl win criteria. Chiefs are at 14.

Those things give context to the dynasty but they absolutely don't define a dynasty. Only championships define dynasties. Otherwise the context (so many playoff appearances in a row and so forth) could stand on it's own. But it can't.

Are Andy Reid's eagles a dynasty? Of course not. But they made 4 or 5 championship games in a row and made a super bowl!

The championships are the important part, and they stand on their own even without context.

 

[Genghis Khan]

Never go full out-of-ass

3 points for SB win, but 1 point for loss?
Bucs fans prefer their one win over 49ers three losses

Exactly. He's off the rails here.

 

[data]

Does anyone here consider the 49ers 1994 SB part of the 80s dynasty?

Are the Chicago Bulls first three peat same dynasty or different dynasty from second three peat?

 

[Texas Ace]

Hell, even if you won 3 in 3 years and nothing else, that's a dynasty. Longevity factors in generally, but the championships are the most important thing. If you disagree with that, remind me again how many teams in the super bowl era have done it? None? Oh. It might be a short dynasty but it's a dynasty nonetheless.

 

[Texas Ace]

Does anyone here consider the 49ers 1994 SB part of the 80s dynasty?

Absolutely not.

Are the Chicago Bulls first three peat same dynasty or different dynasty from second three peat?

Same.

Same 2 big stars in a 5 man game and same coach for both is enough to qualify as the same dynasty for me.

 

[Texas Ace]

I've always felt like 3 is the magic number of championships to qualify as a dynasty.

2 is special, but we've seen it a good amount of times across various sports.

It's 3 that makes a team truly unique and dynastic, IMO.

 

[data]

I've always felt like 3 is the magic number of championships to qualify as a dynasty.

2 is special, but we've seen it a good amount of times across various sports.

It's 3 that makes a team truly unique and dynastic, IMO.

Id say four pre-free agency.

 

[bbgun]

Unfortunately for us, the cap and free agency hit just when we were on our run. That '94 Niners season was the very definition of a bought championship.

 

[data]

Can you consider Larry Bird Celtics a dynasty or co-dynasty when the Showtime Lakers are considered more dominant?

1980 - Lakers win (Celtics lost conference. Bird’s rookie year)
1981 - Celtics win (Lakers lost 1st rnd)
1982 - Lakers win (Celtics lost conference vs 76ers)
1983 - 76ers win vs Lakers (Celtics lost semifinals)
1984 - Celtics win (Lakers lost Finals)
1985 - Lakers win (Celtics lost Finals)
1986 - Celtics win (Lakers lost conference)
1987 - Lakers win (Celtics lost Finals)
1988 - Lakers win (Celtics lost conference)

 

[data]

My out-of-my-ass rubric scores like:

Dynasties produce two or more Superbowl wins

Name a dynasty with only 2 SB wins

I wouldn’t consider 70s Dolphins a dynasty and they’re probably the best of any two-win run with a third SB appearance

 

[ravidubey]

I've always felt like 3 is the magic number of championships to qualify as a dynasty.

2 is special, but we've seen it a good amount of times across various sports.

It's 3 that makes a team truly unique and dynastic, IMO.

I’d agree with this, but two in the context of sustained success and years of competing for championships also makes sense.

Championships alone are not the sole measure, though they are the greatest measure