Is it time for another winner of multiple Super Bowls?

[Patler]

Everyone gives a lot of reasons why the Packers won't win another SB in the next few years, or a bunch of SBs in a short time frame, but the simple fact is it has happened time and time again. In fact, it really is the norm.

Packers championships and SB's in the '60s
Dallas - '71 & '77 (a bit far separated)
Miami - '72 & '73
Pittsburgh - '74, '75, '78 & '79
Oakland - '76 & '80
San Francisco - '81, '84. '88, '89
Washington - '82, '87 & '91
Giants - '86 & '89
Dallas - '92, '93 & '95
Denver - '97 & '98
Patriots - '01, '03 & '04
Pittsburgh - '05 & '08

Throw in the Bills losing 4 Super Bowls in a row, Minnesota losing 4 in 8 years, Denver losing 3 in 4 years and several winners having SB losses during the time periods when they won, is it really unreasonable to expect a very young, seemingly deep and well-run team like the Packers to get back to the SB at least a couple more times in the next 5-6 years and maybe win another 1 or 2 during that time? After all, they were expected to be a contender before the injuries, and did it even after all the injuries.

Two teams won five of the last 10. NE won 3 and played in 4 of them. Pittsburgh won 2 and played in 3 of them.

I don't think it is unreasonable to expect a couple SB opportunities in the next 5 years while TT & MM are under contract and many (most) of the key players are just entering their prime years.

[hoosier]

Many of these examples occurred before free agency, and it's hard to draw them all into the same discussion as evidence that dynasties have always been the norm in the NFL. Before free agency, no question: Green Bay, Miami, Dallas and Pittsburgh give plenty of evidence of such a norm. In the era of free agency there are San Fran and Dallas in the 80s and 90s. Are Washington and NYG really examples of teams that won multiple SBs? My recollection is that their cores had change substantially, especially Washington's between the Riggins/Hogs era and the Rypien/Doug Williams days. But maybe I am misremembering.

Since Dallas we have Denver (whose success on the field is at least partially due to their ability to avoid detection in circumventing the salary cap) and New England and Pittsburgh, the two franchises touted as exceptions to the parity rule in today's NFL.

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect to see GB back in the SB one or more times in the next 5 years. But I can also envision several scenarios where that doesn't happen. Remember that before January the prevailing perception of McCarthy (myself included) was that he was a poor game manager and that his record in building a competent coaching staff was mixed. Has the Packers's unexpected run in last year's playoffs dramatically changed how we see the future of the franchise? Speaking only for myself, last year's remarkable run totally transformed my view of McCarthy. But if the Packers had somehow lost one of the close games played before the SB (both Philly and Chicago almost mounted successful comebacks) McCarthy would still be the coach he is today, but I suspect I would be seeing him in a very different light.

[Patler]

Many of these examples occurred before free agency, and it's hard to draw them all into the same discussion as evidence that dynasties have always been the norm in the NFL. Before free agency, no question: Green Bay, Miami, Dallas and Pittsburgh give plenty of evidence of such a norm. In the era of free agency there are San Fran and Dallas in the 80s and 90s. Are Washington and NYG really examples of teams that won multiple SBs? My recollection is that their cores had change substantially, especially Washington's between the Riggins/Hogs era and the Rypien/Doug Williams days. But maybe I am misremembering.

Since Dallas we have Denver (whose success on the field is at least partially due to their ability to avoid detection in circumventing the salary cap) and New England and Pittsburgh, the two franchises touted as exceptions to the parity rule in today's NFL.

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect to see GB back in the SB one or more times in the next 5 years. But I can also envision several scenarios where that doesn't happen. Remember that before January the prevailing perception of McCarthy (myself included) was that he was a poor game manager and that his record in building a competent coaching staff was mixed. Has the Packers's unexpected run in last year's playoffs dramatically changed how we see the future of the franchise? Speaking only for myself, last year's remarkable run totally transformed my view of McCarthy. But if the Packers had somehow lost one of the close games played before the SB (both Philly and Chicago almost mounted successful comebacks) McCarthy would still be the coach he is today, but I suspect I would be seeing him in a very different light.

I think the list shows there have been some in every decade including most recently two teams combining to win five in the '90s and two others winning 5 in the '00s. It has happened before FA, in the early stages of FA, and with FA as it has become the last 10 years.

There is really no reason not to think that a couple teams can't do it the next 10 years too, or that one of them can't be the Packers, especially since they just won one that maybe they shouldn't have with all the challenges the season gave them. What the front office needs to do to put out contenders over a period of time changes and evolves. A new CBA could throw in some new wrinkles. But for now at least, TT seems to have a decent handle on it.

I do, however, share your concerns about MM. Recall that late last year there was much talk about his abysmal record (something like 4-14 at the time) in games decided by 4 or less points. Has he matured, gained experience, whatever? Not sure, but overall the team seemed more relaxed and in control in tight situations at the end of the year and in the playoffs. There was a different feeling. Luck, law of averages taking over, who knows?

[Willard]

....There is really no reason not to think that a couple teams can't do it the next 10 years too, or that one of them can't be the Packers, especially since they just won one that maybe they shouldn't have with all the challenges the season gave them....

This is how I see it. The Pack's win this year was surprising. I think we all knew the Pack had a talented core, but many of us figured it might take another year or two of experience to pull it all together and go for the title (like the 90's when we got knocked out by the 'Boys 3 straight years). This Super Bowl victory is almost like the Pack winning it all after the '93 or '94 season instead of the '96 season--with a MASH unit worth of injuries to boot. Now the Pack enters into their natural prime already experienced and full of confidence. As long as they stay hungry I like their chances to keep the trophy home.

[RashanGary]

I don't think the Packers have peaked, so yeah. They're still on the upswing and the way Ted keeps replenishing with young talent, who knows how long this could go.

We're in great shape, that's for sure.



EDIT: What Willard said would have been fine without my add-on.

[MadScientist]

As much as I like all the kool-aid talk here, there are a few things that worry me.

1) Lack of hunger - Rodgers words sound like they have a Super Bowl hangover that is still lingering, and given how slow the Packers (particularly the O-line) have started in the past few seasons, I don't like how this is playing out.

2) Driver, Woodson and Clifton are getting old, which will leave little depth if they start to fall off. Yes they drafted a new tackle, but with less prep this year, it will be hard for him to be ready. They drafted a receiver, but they are also likely losing Jones. They have Shields, but with Woodson becoming more of a saftey / rover, they need a true 3rd CB

3) This was a 10-6 team last year that just got in. Yes the playoffs run was great, but there was a lot of marginal wins and losses last season, and a lot of sloppy play, even before all the injuries took place. The Packers have to improve on their regular season play, not only will they not repeat, they will likely not make the playoffs.

[Patler]

I don't necessarily expect them to repeat in 2011, but I think the chances of them returning to the SB another time or two in the next 5 years is pretty good. Once they get there, actually winning it is sort of a toss-up and depends on a lot of things unique to their situation at the time.

2011 is likely to end up as a peculiar season, assuming it is even played. No team will go into it "prepared", so we might see some real good teams struggle and some bad teams catch fire. Talent is close in the NFL and the intangibles mean a lot.

[Joemailman]

I don't necessarily expect them to repeat in 2011, but I think the chances of them returning to the SB another time or two in the next 5 years is pretty good. Once they get there, actually winning it is sort of a toss-up and depends on a lot of things unique to their situation at the time.

2011 is likely to end up as a peculiar season, assuming it is even played. No team will go into it "prepared", so we might see some real good teams struggle and some bad teams catch fire. Talent is close in the NFL and the intangibles mean a lot.

A similar situation to the Patriots? They surprised by winning it in 2001 when an unknown Brady replaced an injured Bledsoe. After one down year, they then won in 2003 and 2004.

[esoxx]

Everyone gives a lot of reasons why the Packers won't win another SB in the next few years, or a bunch of SBs in a short time frame

Actually, I haven't heard much, if any, talk about this. Who is everyone?

[Patler]

Actually, I haven't heard much, if any, talk about this. Who is everyone?

Poorly phrased on my part, I agree, but I started this thread after reading random comments from many on here in various threads about why this team is not better set up than the '96 team to win more Super Bowls, about how parity has taken hold in the NFL and would be the biggest roadblock to multiple SBs, that free agency and the salary cap could water-down the team, that dynasties just don't happen anymore, etc.. Then there were a couple of national articles degraded the Packers chances, and some promoting the Bears as the stronger team in the Central Division. Of course, there was also Urlacher's interview comments, but I wouldn't really expect him to say anything else.

I specifically went and looked at the history after reading comments that the Packers were a good team, but multiple SBs just won't happen in the NFL anymore because the league is so different than before free agency.

[bobblehead]

I can play devil's advocate and list reasons why its so hard to win multiple championships in todays game, but on the flip side I said something after we LOST to the falcons. I said that this packers team, when its on, can beat anyone in the league on that teams best day. I stand by that. When they are on, they can beat anyone anytime. That may or may not lead to another championship, but it certainly gives us reason to expect that we have a very good shot. We have talent up and down the roster and on the bench. Young talent and old talent. We will be competitive for years to come.

[Tarlam!]

Remember that before January the prevailing perception of McCarthy (myself included) was that he was a poor game manager and that his record in building a competent coaching staff was mixed. Has the Packers's unexpected run in last year's playoffs dramatically changed how we see the future of the franchise? Speaking only for myself, last year's remarkable run totally transformed my view of McCarthy. But if the Packers had somehow lost one of the close games played before the SB (both Philly and Chicago almost mounted successful comebacks) McCarthy would still be the coach he is today, but I suspect I would be seeing him in a very different light.

This is so true. And if they'd lost to the Iggles, Rodgers can't win a playoff game!

[Iron Mike]

Is it time for another winner of multiple Super Bowls?

[Tarlam!]

I really love the sound bites!

[Brandon494]

Who in the NFC scares you? No one in the NFC West and no one in our division. Only two teams that actually have a shot to beat us IMO are the Saints and Falcons and we already saw what ARod did against their defense in the playoffs. Anyone who does not believe we will not be competing for multiple championship are either fooling themselves or does not know anything about football.