Football Dynasty
What is a football dynasty? What are the criteria? The most SuperBowl wins? The most Super Bowl appearances? Can you have a football dynasty without Super Bowl wins? How is a dynasty built?
In my opinion, there must be a number of Super Bowl wins in a specified period of time to qualify as a dynasty. I propose that a minimum of 3 Super Bowl appearances with at least two wins in a five year period is the qualifier to be known as a dynasty.
Using this criteria, there have only been three football dynasties since the first Super Bowl in 1967.
UPDATE: JIM VANCE
Wow, lots of passion about the 49ers! I am a huge 49er fan, having lived in the Bay Area for 12 years. I was there for a couple of Super Bowls and remember TO when he was just a very quiet rookie named Terrell Owens. The Niners are the consensus dynasty team of the 1980's, but I tried to look at the definition of a dynasty a bit differently and let the chips fall where they may.
The first of these begin with the 1974 Steelers, then the 1975 Steelers, they skipped 2 years and then won 2 more SuperBowls in '79 & 80, qualifying with the three appearances with the two win minimum (and an extra Super Bowl win for good measure). What were the mainstays of this dynasty? Give credit to Coach Chuck Noll and the successful Steeler drafts. Hall of Famers "Mean" Joe Greene in 1969, Terry Bradshaw and Mel Blount in 1970, Jack Ham in 1971, Franco Harris in 1972, and finally, in 1974, Noll selected four Hall of Famers in one draft year, Mike Webster, Lynn Swann, John Stallworth, and Jack Lambert. The Pittsburgh Steelers' 1974 draft was the best ever - no other team has ever drafted four future Hall of Famers in one year. In that six year, 4 Super Bowl run, the Steelers had a 67-20-1 record. The inevitable decline occurred as their stars aged and retired and injuries took their toll.
The second dynasty was the ‘92, ‘93 and ‘95 Cowboys. What was the core of this Dallas dynasty? Successful draft selections in '88, '89, '90 brought The Triplets. Irvin, Aikman and Smith in that order. Toss in the Herschel Walker trade and the Cowboys got a chance to beef up their defense at the same time and this dynasty had its building blocks. As always, time and injury took their toll. According to some, a clash of personalities between owner and coach and star quarterback and coach was as devastating as bodily injury and father time. The draft, as it was with the Steelers, laid the foundation for dominance. Where this Cowboys team differed from Pittsburgh was in the lack of continuity in the coaching staff.
The New England Patriots in '01, '03 and '04 is the most recent and may be the last ever NFL football dynasty. In 1994 Bob Kraft bought the team to keep it in New England and hired Bill Belichick as head coach in 2000. Bill Parcells had left the Pats earlier after only two years after an argument with Kraft over personnel decisions, it appears that Belichick has managed to exercise more control. Coach Belichick is a student of the game and has consulted with Bill Walsh to learn about organization and Walsh's offense. Belichick consulted with Jimmy Johnson to learn draft techniques and contract negotiations. He has learned his lessons well. Bill Belichick has also developed an extensive coaching tree of assistants and mentors - some of who have made a career in NCAA football and give their old associate valuable tips on later round draft prospects. Bill Belichick has built the Patriots dynasty by developing a ‘plug and play' system that allows him to lose starters but then plug in reserves who can play with little drop off. This is due to excellent drafting in the mid and late rounds.
The one constant in building these three dynasties was the draft. The Steelers dynasty began with having perhaps the most successful draft in football history, while the Cowboys diligently used their number ones to add a solid core. The Herschel Walker trade was the tipping point for the Cowboys immediate success, because the Cowboys may never have had the ability to build that critical mass of solid players over such a short period of time without it.
The league is set up to discourage dynasty building. The more you succeed, the lower you pick in the draft. The more success you have, the more your key players become targets in free agency. The salary cap makes it difficult for teams to continue to pay their stars demands for higher compensation. The punishing nature of the game and injuries create a very small window of opportunity for a team to gel and have success. The Belichick model is the best model under the current circumstances presented by free agency and league parity rules. Draft well in the mid and late rounds, draft to fit your system and develop players. This keeps costs down and productivity high.
The Cowboys have extra picks in this upcoming draft and have a chance to emulate the Belichick model. What strategy will the Cowboys employ? I expect they will do some horse trading to get in position to select a special talent. I, for one, am looking forward to see how they use their mid-round picks.
82 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I strongly disagree with your definition of a dynasty
There is no way you can exclude the 49ers of the 80s as they dominated that decade and a very strong argument can be made the 49ers of the ’80s were the greatest dynasty of all time.
Those teams would wipe the field with the Pats of this decade who barely won each SB they played.
IMO, there have only been 4 true dynasties in modern football, 60s Packers, 70s Steelers, 80s 49ers and 90s Cowboys.
In Romo we Trust
Yeah
The 49ers also won those 4 SBs in a decade in which the Redskins, Giants, Raiders, and Bears were dominant. And even though neither the Broncos didn’t win any that decade, they were pretty strong too.
Come and whisper in my ear, give us dirty laundry - ESPN
+1
60s Packers need to be included
"Ask Philly was it hard tryin' a stop TO, he da main reason that the fans would come fo'."
by aussie_cowboy on Feb 23, 2009 11:36 PM CST up reply actions
I agree...
I don’t really count pre superbowl era.. I just don’t, but I don’t know how you keep out the niners.
Dallas makes me act like Christian Bale......
The 9ers came as close as anybody has to 3-peating in the Super Bowl era.
Plus, they were a force for a whole decade. Contrast that to the Cowboys ’90s dynasty that really only lasted five years.
The Niners had a couple years during that run
in which they had non-playoff appearances (82 and 91) and others where they squeaked into the playoffs and subsequently got booted out unceremoniously in the wildcard (85 and 86), not to mention their humilating playoff defeat in 1987.
The best four year time period was the 92-95 Cowboys, no question. The one year that they didn’t win it all they still won the NFC East and came up just short in the NFC Title Game. Compare that run to the 01-04 Pats, who didn’t even make the playoffs in 2002 (9-7).
49ers didn't have to deal with Free Agency like the 90's Cowboys....
without FA, the 90’s Cowboys would have won way more than 3 SB’s…
by CowboysRnumba1 on Feb 23, 2009 8:44 PM CST up reply actions
+1 FA had a major impact on that team
our lost players made 582 combined starts form 91-95, 11 of which started in at least one SB
"Ask Philly was it hard tryin' a stop TO, he da main reason that the fans would come fo'."
by aussie_cowboy on Feb 23, 2009 11:39 PM CST up reply actions
+1 FA had a major impact on that team
our lost players made 582 combined starts form 91-95, 11 of which started in at least one SB
"Ask Philly was it hard tryin' a stop TO, he da main reason that the fans would come fo'."
by aussie_cowboy on Feb 23, 2009 11:39 PM CST up reply actions
hey.....i heard ya the first time....lol
by CowboysRnumba1 on Feb 24, 2009 1:31 AM CST up reply actions
haha sorry...
"Ask Philly was it hard tryin' a stop TO, he da main reason that the fans would come fo'."
by aussie_cowboy on Feb 24, 2009 5:35 AM CST up reply actions
Right On, Terry
49ers might have been the greatest sports franchise since the decline of the 1960’s Packers. They fielded extremely strong teams virtually every year for almost two decades. Their five Super Bowls in that stretch only begin to tell how good a team they were.
And the Packers were the model dominant NFL team. There’s never been a team like them before or since.
The Patriots are tainted by the fact their three title games were won by a combined nine points (Dallas’ smallest margin of victory in the Super Bowl was ten), and of course the spygate cloud that continues to hang over their heads. No one ever accused the other dynasties of breaking the rules to collect their Lombardis.
As for sustained dominance
Don’t forget Landry’s Cowboys. How many years in a row did they go to the playoffs? And how many years in a row were they in strong competition for the Super Bowl?
If They Had Won
More than two Super Bowls, they would be an easy choice. Since they only won twice, it’s hard to consider them a dynasty. More like, sustained near-greatness?
I agree...
2-3, a losing record in the Super Bowl in the 70’s just doesn’t quite catapult them into the class of Dynasty.
0 = The number of Super Bowls the Eagles have won.
It makes zero sense to compare teams pre-cap to post-cap
All you have to remember is that the 49’ers stashed Steve Young on their bench for five years. Those types of things aren’t possible in the current era. You can’t afford starting caliber depth and SB teams lose 3-5 starters (usually overpaid) once they win one.
by StillHateTheGiants on Feb 23, 2009 9:09 PM CST up reply actions
i agree....but forget the cap...you can't compare teams with no free agency to teams nowadays...
free agency took away the ability to build dynasty’s..the cap just reassures teams and players more than likely can’t stay in one place theit whole career…Canty is a perfect example…He might not of even hit his stride yet we’ll never find out, cuz free agency forces us to pass on him……they should have salary cap exemptions for your own drafted players….like the NBA…
by CowboysRnumba1 on Feb 23, 2009 9:58 PM CST up reply actions
Right on the money
In my mind I tend to put it all together as cap and free agency. I misspoke when I only mentioned the cap. You are absolutely right and Canty is a perfect example.
by StillHateTheGiants on Feb 24, 2009 6:04 AM CST up reply actions
The Patriots in '01 to '04 "may be the last ever NFL dynasty" ?
Please. I don’t even know that they qualify. Yes, yes, they have the SB wins. Courtesy, of course of the “tuck” rule and McNabb choking in the 4th Qtr. Those teams won, but were they DOMINANT? No. I would argue that the Patriots of the last 3-4 years have been even more dominant. They blew teams out all the time.
And Jim, its a little premature to be suggesting that NFL will never see another dynasty? While you’re right that the system is designed to discourage dynasty building, that system is set to expire in 2011. What happens then? Who knows.
What do you mean by dominant?
Were the Patriots blowing people out?
Negative.
But they have the two longest winning streaks… EVER.
That’s pretty damn dominant.
There isn’t a team that wins a superbowl that doesn’t have some luck…
Dallas makes me act like Christian Bale......
And the Patriots did it in the modern era, even more impressive
All those other dynasties would have been dismantled, just like the 90’s Cowboys were. The current system is not only set up to discourage a dynasty, it takes them apart.
by StillHateTheGiants on Feb 23, 2009 8:25 PM CST up reply actions
+1 Pats are the team of the new millenium...
can’t discount what they’ve done…I have no doubt they would have won this year with a healthy Tom Brady..
by CowboysRnumba1 on Feb 23, 2009 8:47 PM CST up reply actions
Well...
You have to have doubt.
I mean they didn’t win it last year with a healthy Tom Brady.
Dallas makes me act like Christian Bale......
As much as I hate NE...
They do have the trophies….so dominant or not, I think you have to qualify them as such….they’ve been very good for a while now and 3 SB’s is nothing to sneeze at
The free agent and salary cap systems are not going away.
And Jim, its a little premature to be suggesting that NFL will never see another dynasty? While you’re right that the system is designed to discourage dynasty building, that system is set to expire in 2011. What happens then? Who knows.
So that means no fundamental change.
by StillHateTheGiants on Feb 23, 2009 9:14 PM CST up reply actions
And as proof you have to have SB wins for dyanasty membership
You can’t forget about the hapless Buffalo Bills of the 90s.
Bills of the 90's were one of the best teams ever..
by CowboysRnumba1 on Feb 23, 2009 8:48 PM CST up reply actions
Then where do you rate the 70's Cowboys?
If not for the Steelers, they have 2 more plus what they won.
I thought of the Bills too, but sheesh, don’t you have to win at least 1?
by StillHateTheGiants on Feb 23, 2009 8:59 PM CST up reply actions
Bills were the best in the AFC in the early 90's
They were not one of the best ever. Had the Bills been in the NFC at that time they wouldn’t have even made to the Super Bowl as the best NFC teams were superior at that time.
0 = The number of Super Bowls the Eagles have won.
Almost
If the Steelers win another in the next couple of years they’re definately in the conversation.
by StillHateTheGiants on Feb 23, 2009 8:27 PM CST up reply actions
Yeah...
Winning 2 superbowls in 4 years doesn’t make you a dynasty.
If thats the case then you have to put Elways Broncos in there. They are only one of what 4 teams that won back to back super bowls?
Dallas makes me act like Christian Bale......
That's why
the term “dynasty” doesn’t really mean anything. If this were China 2,000 years ago, “dynasty” has a meaning. It’s football, so… uh, we’re kinda shoehorning a meaning here.
This iteration of the Steelers won’t be a dynasty… first of all, there are different players and coaches, and on a wholesale level. So it’s a different ‘generation’ of Steelers football, so it can’t be in the “dynasty” discussion out of hand, in my view.
Secondly, they don’t dominate their division, they don’t dominate game-to-game, they aren’t a juggernaut that lays waste to opponents. Quality-wise, they are about the equal of the Ravens. They should’ve lost this Super Bowl to the Cardinals… they got INCREDIBLY lucky. The Cardinals were better than them, in my opinion. The fluke 101 INT return by a LB with no time on the clock sealed the win, and it was a one in 50 million chance that he scores (and i think he didn’t get in the end zone). Also, while i’m ranting, Warner’s final fumble was an incomplete pass… how the F wasn’t it reviewed????
And finally, we all watched it… the 2008/2009 Steelers aren’t as good as the Cowboys of the same season. We saw Romo hand over the game. We saw the Cowboys play with no vigor and sleepwalk and get hammered by the Steelers, but when the Cowboys only SORT OF got it in gear, the rolled over the Steelers on offense and stone walled them on D.
So, if the Steelers continue with 10-6 records, but still win some Super Bowls, they don’t measure up to a dynasty to me. The recent Pats teams would eviscerate this Steelers team.
All valid points
And they all support the fact that a truly dominant, sustaining team isn’t possible in this era. The 07 Pats were the closest thing to dominant we’ve seen in a long time, other SB champs in the past 10 yrs are pretty much decent teams that get hot or lucky. Having said that, if the Steelers somehow get hot or lucky again in the next couple of years, I would say they’re close to a “dynasty” for this era.
by StillHateTheGiants on Feb 24, 2009 9:08 AM CST up reply actions
The thing to question about the Pats is
if their trophies were the result of spying or not. Obviously their 3 SB wins would qualify them as a dynasty but did those wins happen due to cheating?
Well, the very first victory in their first Super Bowl win is the result of a joke rule.
Plus, the next year they failed to even make the playoffs after their bogus title.
Pssh
Please give it up.
I mean they still had to beat the Rams and beat the Steelers.
I hate the rule as well but I wouldn’t call it a bogus title, I’m sure they aren’t the only team to be effected by an officiating rule.
Dallas makes me act like Christian Bale......
Yeah, like not reviewing the last play of the Super Bowl
this past year or not giving Santonio Holmes an Unsportsmanlike Penalty. As they say it is what it is and the truth is, the Pats won within the rules of the game
That would've been a lame and ticky tack call.
Of course, the guy was going to be excited and celebrate. He just scored the winning TD in the Super Bowl. The refs did the right thing by swallowing the whistle in that instance. Did I mention I hate excessive celebration penalties?
Fine these clowns all you want but games shouldn’t be decided by breakdances that happen after the whistles. Slapping opposing players upside their helmet (or any form of taunting) is a different story, of course, but oddly enough every time I’ve seen that jack@ss Brandon Jacobs physically taunt opposing defenders after plays, he never seems to draw a flag.
I do agree that not reviewing Warner’s final pass in the Super Bowl was just plain lazy at best and borderline corrupt at worst. But again, the difference in that circumstance is even if it was ruled an incomplete pass, all the Cardinals were assured of was a final Hail Mary heave. That’s different than the tuck rule where the Raiders were assured a victory if not for some obscure rule noone had ever heard of.
Don't agree
Mike Pireirra (head of officiating) agreed that there should have been a 15 yd penalty on Santonio Holmes for excessive celebration. Don’t get me wrong,I think it’s a goofy rule, but it is the rule. I think they will review this rule sometime soon. I am not trying to debate rules with you, I’m just saying that is the rule as it now stands same as the tuck rule. Is this a controversial rule. You bet, but they are the rules as the NFL has them at this time. So with all my long winded explanation, the Pats won fair and square because the tuck rule is in the rulebook. Pittsburg should have been given a 15 yd. penalty for Unsporstmanlike Conduct whether it’s the Super Bowl or just a regular game.
I wasn't disagreeing that it's "the rule."
I was just saying the rule sucks and seems like yet another way for the crotchety old higher-ups to control the misbehavin’ employees. No fun league indeed. By the way, on the tuck rule, I maintain Brady’s arm was stationary and had stopped moving at the time he was stripped of the ball. As far as I’m concerned, he had already completed his pump fake/attempt and was standing there holding the ball making him as eligible to fumble as some jitterbug running back that is standing back there trying to shake and bake.
Pireirra’s a company man dingleberry because he passionately defended Ed Hochuli’s blown call in the Week 2 Broncos/Chargers game saying fumbles are officiated the way they are (early whistles if a ref thinks it was an incomplete pass) to save QB’s from having to go after loose balls and hurting themselves on plays that were actually incomplete passes.
It's all about the finality of the blown call/dumb rule.
For instance, Bucs fans to this day may still feel like they got jobbed by having Bert Emanuel’s catch overturned in the 2000 NFC Title game. The difference is even if the catch had stood there’s no way of knowing for certain the Bucs would’ve been able to score the go-ahead TD.
Now, on the other hand, after the Raiders recovered Brady’s fumble, all they would have had to do was kneel down and run the clock out. Simple as that. There was no other possible outcome.
Lucky. Bogus. Whatever. At the very least, the Raiders should get as much credit for being Super Bowl champs that year as the Patsies since they beat the champs in the playoffs. Let’s just call the ’01 Patsies half-champs.
Give another example of a team that essentially got a do-over on their very last possession and I’ll budge on my stance.
*Actually in some strange way the “Tuck Rule” game was karmic since in the Raiders’ first Super Bowl winning season back in the ’70s they likely would have to lost to the Patriots in their playoff opener were it not for a ticky tack roughing the passer penalty.
What are you talking about?
“The Raiders should get as much credit for being Super Bowl Champs”
That wasn’t even the AFC Championship, that was the divisional round dude.
You can go ahead and say that the Raiders would have made it to the AFC championship but thats all you can assure.
If that had happened early in the first quarter no one would be talking about it. You still have to convert, Oakland could have still stopped them.
Dallas makes me act like Christian Bale......
Your last line is my point exactly.
The Raiders were put in a situation where they had to beat the Patsies twice.
In the first quarter, there’s still 50 more minutes to go. But because the play happened when it did in a down-to-the-wire tight game it needs to be pointed out because there was no way in hell the Patsies could have won if not for the fruity rule/blown call in question. They got a do-over and the Raiders defense had to stop them twice. There’s lucky, then there’s whatever you want to call that. I call it bogus.
I will give Adam Viniatieri credit for still being a clutch enough kicker to nail two huge field goals in crap conditions.
Agreed.
That it was lucky, but you still have to give them credit for finishing the games and winning.
Dallas makes me act like Christian Bale......
I definitely give Bellichick credit for the brilliant scheme he devised to stop the Rams.
Of course, there are some who hate giving him credit for anything so give it to Mangenius instead or the Patsies camcorder technician or whomever.
Further more...
The Cowboys got some lucky non-calls in their win over the Packers in the 95 NFC Championship game. I guess if the Pats didn’t really disserve their 2001 title due to bad officiating then neither do the 95 Cowboys, (or nay other number of teams that have benefited from bad officiating.
0 = The number of Super Bowls the Eagles have won.
Bad officiating(non-calls) and getting a do-over after a turnover on what would otherwise certainly be your final possession of the game are two different things.
I re-watched the whole game recently and didn’t spot any glaring non-calls in the ‘95 NFC Title game besides the dirty chop block on Jurkovic which would’ve been a biggie. Maybe the Cowboys got away with some other dirty line play and holding but if that’s the case, I’m sure they got away with that alot during that period. But if that’s the case in the ‘03 AFC Title game the Patsies held the Colts receivers all game long but the refs were officiating the passing game like it was the ’70s when you could mug guys. On the Colts very last offensive play, McGinest blatantly held Harrison for example. But that’s not the game I was criticizing for poor officiating nor will I.
At any rate, the Cowboys won by double digits so even without the lucky non-calls there’s a good chance they would’ve won the game you brought up. I think the Cowboys were much luckier in Super Bowl XXX when let’s face it after going up 13-0, they seemed to put it on cruise control and were only bailed out by some bearded bonehead’s color blindness.
Now back to “the Tuck,” the Patsies were down by 3 on their final possession and if the tuck is correctly ruled a fumble instead of an incomplete tuck, the Raiders kneel down and run the clock out. That’s the only possible outcome. That’s even different than say the horribly officiated Super Bowl XL when even if all those calls go for the Seahawks you’re still talking about a game that comes down to the final gun. I’m talking about what should’ve been the final play of the Pats’ final possession. Huge difference. The “if it occurred in the first quarter” thing doesn’t hold up for me, because I doubt Charles Woodson is coming on a corner blitz in the first quarter. Those were the stakes, stop the Patsies, run out the clock and win. They pulled out all the stops on that play and did stop them but according to some chickensh*t rule, they actually didn’t. Going back to the 1995 NFC Title game, the Packers had a 4th quarter lead and what lost the game was an ill-advised Favre heave sandwiched between two long Cowboys scoring drives where Aikman completed all of his passes and most impressively Emmitt and crew gutted the Pack D with ease. So there’s a huge difference between those two games and any controversy surrounding them. Non-calls is one thing; missed calls on plays that were obviously turnovers is something else altogether.
My final word on the ’01 Pats is I think they should be considered Super Bowl Champs that season as much as the 5th down Colorado Buffaloes should be considered 1990 college football National Champions. With some sort of asterisk.
They won each time with a vastly different set of personnel; particulalry at the skill positions.
Of course, that’s some kind of accomplishment in itself. They belong in their own category for being able to reload but I don’t think they qualify as a dynasty.
For the sake of clarity..
..what I suggested was that in any 5 year period..a team appears in the Super Bowl at least 3 times. (this would mean you were the best in your conference the majority of any 5 year period) and the best in the league twice in that 5 year period. Using that criteria, the ‘Skins didn’t play in 3 Super Bowls in that 5 year period although they did win 2.
"He has a peculiar felicity of expression." John Adams
49ers
I’d imagine you can guess what I think about your lack of the 49ers on that list. I smell a Niners Nation front page post coming down the pipeline!
Another country heard from...
Yeah. Go ahead and bring it. God knows your team has nothing else of interest to talk about. Speaking of dynasties, keep one thing in mind. If Deon hadn’t blatantly interfered with Irvin in the final minutes of the ‘04 game (worst non-call of all time), the Boys’ would have won four straight championships. Put that in DeBartolo’s pipe and smoke it Fooch.
by Boundforbeach on Feb 23, 2009 7:15 PM CST up reply actions
I agree
that leaving out Green Bay and the 49 ers is wrong. Both teams dominated the eras they played in. The fallout of the west coast offence is still being felt two decades later. I guess you have to count SB s but, I watch Jim Kelly’s Bills dominate the AFC for years without bringing home the hardware. The NFC teams just had their number. Not that I minded when Dallas beat them. LOL
Possible Carpenter trade!
I was reading an earlier article where the talk was centered around a possible trade of B. Carpenter to the dolphins for a draft pick. Well what about the possibility of a straight up trade of Carpenter for safety Jason Allen. Both were first round picks, and both are not starting for their teams and have fallen out of grace. We need a safety as well. What do you think?
Or...
That means that Dallas is definitly aiming for a linebacker in FA.
Dallas makes me act like Christian Bale......
Do you have the link?
What round draft pick were they talking in return? If the article is about a week old by some Miami scribe talking about a 6th or 7th, don’t bother. We’ve seen it.
by Boundforbeach on Feb 23, 2009 7:36 PM CST up reply actions
i think he's talking about that old article...
although i’d take the LB-Carp for S-Allen trade…..it does seem like a fair deal…heck, we can throw in S- Patrick Watkins for QB-John Beck while were at it….
Huge 49er fan?
Jim Vance, I’m not sure revealing that little nugget will make you many fans on this page. I had to double check just to make sure I read that right.
I’m sure you’re a nice guy, and your articles are quality. But you are a huge 49er fan? Present tense? I still hate the 49ers, and Merton Hanks quit playing for them years ago.
John 14:6
hahaha good ol' Merton Hanks!
I remember I used to HATE that lanky, long necked jerk…
by AikmanNailedMySis on Feb 24, 2009 9:24 AM CST up reply actions
But he does have a famous neck....
we will always remember him as the guy with the weird chicken neck. LOL
yeah, I hope Jim can explain to me
how you can be both a big Cowboys fan and 49ers fan, that makes no sense to me.
That would be like a Steelers fan also being a big Pats fan, I don’t think such a person exists.
In Romo we Trust
I was waiting
for someone else to ask the question. I did a double and then a triple take. Can one of the lead writers on blogging the boys be a huge 49ers fan? I doubt very much that anyone at the 49ers blog would allow a huge Cowboys fan to be a main author. In fact, hatred of the 49ers should be a criteria for being a Cowboys fan. And I am only half kidding.
"Confidence doesn't come out of nowhere. It's a result of something... hours and days and weeks and years of constant work and dedication." --Roger Staubach
Pat Watkins is his bigger clone..
I think he’s got an extra vertebrae or something..
For emphasis, Watkins needs to put on that little scarf
that Hanks used to wear.haha
WOW just put it together that...
Pat Watkins is a terrible tackler and hurt his neck b/c there’s no way he can get the thing out of the way
by commoncents on Feb 24, 2009 10:25 AM CST up reply actions
when they were teaching him to wrap up when tackling...
he figured that meant wrapping his neck around the guy, like a python…

by 





















