Why The Long Winning Streaks Recently?

[Joemailman]

Last week the Packers became just the 9th team in NFL history to start 12-0. However, it's the 5th time it's happened since 2005. Why the run of dominant teams (at least in the regular season) during a time of supposed parity? The one common denominator of all these teams would seem to be truly great quarterbacks:

2005: Peyton Manning 104.1 passer rating
2007: Tom Brady 117.2 passer rating
2009: Drew Brees 109.6 passer rating
2009: Peyton Manning 99.9 passer rating
2011: Aaron Rodgers 125.3 passer rating

Is it the quarterbacks, is it just a coincidence, or is there something else going on here?

Discuss

[Freak Out]

Great pad level.

[pbmax]

Split into 4 divisions. Its far easier than it used to be to find a division that stinks. Last year the Packers had the AFC East.

2005 Colts had the NFC West (only the Seaturkeys were good)
2007 Patriots had the NFC East (would possibly be an exception, Cowboys were good and Giants were OK)
2009 Colts had the NFC West (only Cardinals were good)
2009 Saints had the AFC East (Patriots were good but lost 6 games, Jets were on upswing but went 9-7)
2011 Packers have the AFC West

[hoosier]

Interesting question, good post. There is certainly a strong correlation with the QB factor, but is there a one-to-one causality? What if we look at the years in the 80s and 90s when Montana and Young were posting 100+ ratings and the 9ers were consistently elite? Did San Fran ever threaten to go undefeated? Their best record was 15-1 (1984) but they lost in week 7. What other factors could we identify as common to post-2000 teams when this "12-0" trend seems to have picked up?

If you remove the Colts and the Pats from the equation there is no trend. What do NE and Indy have in common? Both have been successful at avoiding the pitfalls of free agency--the bad contracts, the underperformers--and have also been good at curbing their divas, or avoiding them altogether. Both have QBs who have played at HOF level for a decade or so while avoiding signficant injuries for the most part. My reading is that those teams have given themselves a bigger window (a decade) with HOF QBs by skirting the problems associated with free agency. Within that larger window, they have managed to come close to undefeated seasons several times.

[Upnorth]

I agree a lot with what hoosier is saying but would add the salary cap to it. Having a salary cap makes good front offices better as the rules are the same for everyone. No team can really out spend each other so when you have a good organization it serves as a multiplier effect. Good front offices tend to make less mistakes, less mistakes makes a better roster, better roster means less coaching turnover, less turnover means less thought and more 'instinctive' play.
I'm over simplifying but I hope yo see where I'm going.
Great thread btw.

[vince]

Good points about free agency and navigating the cap. It's all about getting undervalued players and those who can do that the best have a definitive upper hand when you take into account unpredicatable injuries the the need for depth throughout the roster. Luck can have a bit to do with that too, as the right players need to be more or less healthy throughout the year to stack wins.

I'd say it's mostly the quarterbacks. Those elite QB's are historically good, but as you look through the rest of the league, there's a pretty significant dropoff at the position IMO from there. It's really difficult to win consistently without good QB play in this era, but if you have a really good one (Manning, Brady, Brees, Rodgers) you can be very tough to beat in this era of parity as the Packers can attest to now - even with an average D. Defenses have a lot to overcome with the defenseless receiver rules, no contact after 5 yards, can't hit the QB high or low or with the crown of the helmet, etc., etc. Those rules have placed a premium value on elite QB play.