Commanders Post at The Warpath - View Single Post - The Last of the NFL's Super Teams: The Epic '80s

freddyg12 · 06-20-2008, 10:21 AM

I've made these comparisons so many times in my mind; pre free agency & post fa. Of course the 80s were good times for us & continuity was a Gibbs' hallmark, so those days will always be missed by Skins fans. It took me a while to get used to free agency & the cap, but like most fans I've accepted it & I'm probably an even bigger fan today.

This article is really just a bit of nostalgia, and I'm all for that, but he doesn't really make his central point very well at all. He doesn't even mention the Pats. Are they not a dynasty? Spygate or not, they've had more success than most of the teams that he cites as dynasties in the 80s. (Remember back then when everyone talked about the "super bowl hangover?" No one in the 80s won back to back.)

If his point is that free agency has changed the image & identities of teams too much, then he shoud've just said that. If his point is that there were several top teams back then, he kinda makes that point. Otherwise, what he basically says is that there is too much parity.

The Pats have proven that you can build a dynasty in this era. The Colts & Iggles have been close, but actually have been beaten by the Pats, otherwise we might be putting them in that class.

06-20-2008, 10:21 AM	#3
freddyg12 Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 4,540	Re: The Last of the NFL's Super Teams: The Epic '80s I've made these comparisons so many times in my mind; pre free agency & post fa. Of course the 80s were good times for us & continuity was a Gibbs' hallmark, so those days will always be missed by Skins fans. It took me a while to get used to free agency & the cap, but like most fans I've accepted it & I'm probably an even bigger fan today. This article is really just a bit of nostalgia, and I'm all for that, but he doesn't really make his central point very well at all. He doesn't even mention the Pats. Are they not a dynasty? Spygate or not, they've had more success than most of the teams that he cites as dynasties in the 80s. (Remember back then when everyone talked about the "super bowl hangover?" No one in the 80s won back to back.) If his point is that free agency has changed the image & identities of teams too much, then he shoud've just said that. If his point is that there were several top teams back then, he kinda makes that point. Otherwise, what he basically says is that there is too much parity. The Pats have proven that you can build a dynasty in this era. The Colts & Iggles have been close, but actually have been beaten by the Pats, otherwise we might be putting them in that class.