Best Decade of the NFL

[mwald]

Rupert made a good point about the also-rans of the decade, but not sure it’s any different today.

I think it is much easier today to rise from an also ran to become competitive. The 2008 Lions went 0-16, and by 2011 were 10-6 and in the playoffs. In 2007 the Dolphins were 1-15, and the following season were 11-5 and won the AFC East in a tiebreaker over the Patriots who went 16-0 the previous season. I think if the right personnel show up in a mediocre franchise (Drew Brees and Sean Peyton comes to mind) they can turn things around in a hurry and keep them competitive. Back in the 70's you used to be able to write off half or more of the league as being out of the running for the playoffs before the season started, these days, I might write off a half dozen or less teams that I think have no chance of making it to .500 going into a season. With free agency and improvements in identifying and qualifying talent via the draft, the gap between the haves and the have nots is a lot less than it was in the 70's.

In the 70's, the Steelers didn't have to worry about losing an LC Greenwood or John Stallworth or Rocky Bleier or Donnie Shell to Free Agency every single year, those guys were going to be with the team as long as the team wanted them to be there or until they chose to retire or were injured and were forced to quit. If the Steelers had to deal with Free Agency in the 70's, there is no way they would have won four Super Bowls in six seasons. Belichick has managed to do it in New England with one anchor at QB (Brady), and very few guys who have spent their entire careers there. How many future HOFers played for the Pats in that era? Brady of course, and Vinatieri. Junior Seau was there for a year, but he had already punched his ticket for Canton before he got to New England. After that maybe one or two, not counting the active guys like Welker, and Gronkowski if he can stay healthy for about 8-10 more years at an elite level.

Actually, you make a lot of good points. I completely agree about free agency. It's done more bad to the league than any of the rule changes people complain about or the evolution of statistics, which, if you ignore them, have barely made a difference in the competitive balance if you view it from 5,000 feet.

I think what you're saying works in the negative, however. That is, free agency has caused good teams to break apart and not stay together. When that good team loses more games next year, they are replaced by wins somewhere else.

With the exception of QBs or the occasional Reggie White, free agency doesn't contribute much to turning a bad team around, though. I think coaches have more impact, as Jim Harbaugh in San Francisco instantly proved with essentially the same cast.

[Rupert Patrick]

Actually, you make a lot of good points. I completely agree about free agency. It's done more bad to the league than any of the rule changes people complain about or the evolution of statistics, which, if you ignore them, have barely made a difference in the competitive balance if you view it from 5,000 feet.

I think what you're saying works in the negative, however. That is, free agency has caused good teams to break apart and not stay together. When that good team loses more games next year, they are replaced by wins somewhere else.

With the exception of QBs or the occasional Reggie White, free agency doesn't contribute much to turning a bad team around, though. I think coaches have more impact, as Jim Harbaugh in San Francisco instantly proved with essentially the same cast.

I don't think free agency is bad at all, and while I agree that it has caused some good teams to break apart, others, like the Patriots, and the Steelers, and the Packers, and the Broncos, have been able to stay competitive year after year, winning at least 10 games a year most seasons, by successfully plugging the holes left by free agency thru smart drafting or trading or bringing in other free agency. I think a player should be able to make as much as he possibly can on the open market, that he should not be contractually bound to a team in perpetuity like they used to be in baseball and football via reserve clauses. In practically any other profession, if I don't like my job I can leave and go work at another company, or if somebody offers me more money I should be able to change jobs. Professional athletes should have the same right.

[Saban1]

50's and 60's for me.

[mwald]

Actually, you make a lot of good points. I completely agree about free agency. It's done more bad to the league than any of the rule changes people complain about or the evolution of statistics, which, if you ignore them, have barely made a difference in the competitive balance if you view it from 5,000 feet.

I think what you're saying works in the negative, however. That is, free agency has caused good teams to break apart and not stay together. When that good team loses more games next year, they are replaced by wins somewhere else.

With the exception of QBs or the occasional Reggie White, free agency doesn't contribute much to turning a bad team around, though. I think coaches have more impact, as Jim Harbaugh in San Francisco instantly proved with essentially the same cast.

I don't think free agency is bad at all, and while I agree that it has caused some good teams to break apart, others, like the Patriots, and the Steelers, and the Packers, and the Broncos, have been able to stay competitive year after year, winning at least 10 games a year most seasons, by successfully plugging the holes left by free agency thru smart drafting or trading or bringing in other free agency. I think a player should be able to make as much as he possibly can on the open market, that he should not be contractually bound to a team in perpetuity like they used to be in baseball and football via reserve clauses. In practically any other profession, if I don't like my job I can leave and go work at another company, or if somebody offers me more money I should be able to change jobs. Professional athletes should have the same right.

In terms of players rights, agreed. That said, as a fan of the NFL indentured servitude was better.

Regarding the Pats, Steelers, Packers, and Broncos we'll have to agree to disagree. Great teams. Great organizations. Good coaches. If they didn't find those players, they'd have found some others and got the same result. And if they didn't find any players for those spots the results would've barely changed.

[Reaser]

I posted my thoughts on how people incorrectly view FA on the old forums - especially when people do the typical "(insert pre-FA great team) didn't lose players" as if you only LOSE players in FA.

In less detail (didn't get all the way into how current era allows for more interchangeable parts) I posted my thoughts again on these forums, after the Super Bowl last season.

http://www.profootballresearchers.com/f ... 5571&hilit

[DukeSlater]

The 1970s, 1980s and 1990s for me....

Of course, I loved the AFL in the 1960s, even though that was before my time as a fan.

[Bob Gill]

A lot of these points have already been made, but that won't stop me: I think the 1950s, '60s and '70s were the three best decades, and which one you pick depends mainly on which story line you prefer.

The 1950s had the development of two-platoon football and famous defensive specialists, and with only 12 major league teams, a terrific concentration of talent. I wouldn't be surprised if there were more Hall of Famers per team in that decade than any other. (In any given season, about half of the teams had a Hall of Fame quarterback, for instance.) A lot of terrific races for division titles, including several playoffs to break ties.

The 1960s had the Packers' dynasty, which is made especially interesting because Green Bay was playing a style that contrasted with the trend around the rest of the league, where 3,000-yard passers were appearing almost annually, for the first time. Several outstanding championship games, particularly the Green Bay-Dallas matchups in 1966 and '67. And on top of that, there's the rise of the AFL, which started as a marginal league and improved to the point where it won the last two Super Bowls of the decade. Plus a lot of famous games and a wide-open style of play, especially in the AFL in its early pass-happy years.

In the 1970s (that's 1970-77, before the big rule changes of 1978) the defense reasserted itself, and the 3,000-yard passes dried up, replaced by waves of 1,000-yard rushers. The monolith NFL had what I consider the best playoff system of all multi-team systems, with three division winners and a wild card team in each conference. It's true that these were lean times for a lot of perennial also-ran teams, but the good teams were really GOOD. Cinderella teams (like my local team this year) are fun to root for, but I think I prefer to have genuine powerhouses playing each other at the end of the season.

So I'm not sure which I'd pick in a pinch, but I think you can make a good argument for any of these eras.

[James]

1930's and 1970's for me.

I HATE free agency, in my opinion it has ruined the game .

[JWL]

I’d go with the 1970s, for both. Rupert made a good point about the also-rans of the decade, but not sure it’s any different today. But the Cowboys, Rams, Raiders, Steelers, Vikings, and Dolphins? Personality par excellence! Don’t know that there’s been a decade with so many teams so good for so long, all who at least had the potential to win the Super Bowl every year.

The 1970s in that way could be compared to the AFC of the past 13 years. From 2003-15, it seems the Patriots, Colts, Broncos, Steelers and Ravens are in the playoffs every year and then there is some other random team joining them.

[JWL]

How I rank the decades I experienced-
1. 1990s
2. 2000s
3. 1980s
4. 2010s

I rank the prior decades in reverse chronological order.