Originally posted by botankus
Agreed.Backup QB with 80 IQ always gets the nod over 30-year fan who devotes every Sunday to getting the most out of each and every game.
The reason? People typically don't want to be "told" about football by someone who's never played at the professional level.
Which is arrogance on the fan side. The amount of work put in and amount of knowledge gained by even a backup QB with 80 IQ far far far dwarfs sitting on the couch with your boys watching the game every Sunday. You've seen players develop from rookies to Superstars on the flat screen, these people have lived with developing superstars. You've heard about lockerroom guys and such, they've seen them, first hand. You've learned through watching ESPN what makes a team great, they've played on these teams and seen it first hand.
Originally posted by BobbyDGood point, they usually are wrong. Nobody knows shit usually until the teams play it out. It was a huge upset though and you cant disagree with that. But the general feeling nationwide was that the Pats would win. We knew they stakced up well against the Pats but most thought the Pats would win in the end. Im happy as shit they didnt. Espn and the greatest of all time talk brainwashed a lot of people.
...which absolutely infuriates me as to why there are so many stupid f**ks in sports broadcasting, analysts, coaching and GM spots.Believe me: there are many Joe Schmo civilians out there who can go toe to toe with a lot of these people, who only have these jobs for who they know--not what they know.
i'm biased but i'll take the '92 cowboys, they had the number one offense and number one defense, the number three rated passer, number one rusher, and number one reciever, also they had like fourteen pro bowlers in one of the '90s seasons, i think it was '92 but don't take that as fact just yet, also they ousted a buffalo team that had gone and lost two superbowls prior.
and they repeated which i don't care who you are but thats tough to do, also you can argue that almost half of this team will go into the hall of fame eventually,
and look at who was on the team:
Troy aikman, bernie kosar, michael irvin, emmit smith, alvin harper, larry brown, ken norton jr., moose johnson, jay novacek, darren woodson, and in future years would get such names as deon sanders, charles haley, and herschel walker.
however i would also call it a tie with the '89 niners, because everything i listed about the cowboys, the niners have done and more, so unbiasedly i'd go with the niners, but you could make an argument that dallas is the best
It might just be that the average age of the forum is fairly low, but it's good that no one has really mentioned anyone before, say, 1980 as a legit contender for this. Dominant as some of them were (we'll use the Steelers as an example) they wouldn't stack up to modern standards. Would the 70's Steelers compete today? Absolutely. I feel like they could have a winning season in today's NFL. But would they be a dynasty? Not even close. Advances in the game, whether it's training techniques, steroids, etc. or improvements to strategy (playbooks were a fraction of what they are today), the game has just moved forward.
85 Bears are cliche, but I'll stay with them. Epic defense and running game = competitive and > most any team ever. I'll also reiterate the 98 Broncos and 96 Packers, who aren't mentioned enough (Pack had the best D in the league that year, for example, though most only remember Favre & Co.). I don't value stats so much as a simple eyeball test of teams, and seeing if they'd stack up.
Originally posted by TheGame17
i think the 07-08 patriots were the greatest team ever. despite the fluke that occured in the super bowl, they were the best.
They had very little run game and a suspect defense. The Giants showed that all you needed to do was run the ball and pressure Brady, and they were screwed. You don't think the 85 Bears could've done those two things better than the 07 Giants?! The most I'll grant them is best passing offense ever, and even that isn't certain.
It wasn't the 85 Bears that beat them, or the 90's Cowboys, or any other amazing team. It was the 07 Giants. I'm just happy they burst the bubble on what we could all see with our own eyes.
how could you put a team that lost the superbowl on the greatest single season team? i mean if you can get beat by a hot team then are you really a good team, or are the coaches the team.
for example, the browns versus the broncos, the browns were a great team, but they never beat the broncos in the post season during the late 80s because the broncos were the better team, and what i'm trying to say is the broncos walked into the game knowing they were going to win.
and about the steelers if they competed today would they not have the same advantages that players have today as well? chuck knoll may not have been an offensive powerhouse, but the defense was stacked and they had full rotations, this was during the 60 minute men, who played the entire game and they had rotations that snuffed the run out, and if you tried to pass mel blount and company were there to intercept, and the combination of Franco Harris and Rocky Bleier is just too much of a punch to stop consistently.
however, i'll agree that they would be like today's baltimore ravens (if they had Mcgahee and Lewis), bradshaw would not be as effective nowadays. he would turn out like a kyle boller or rex grossman. actually i would compare him to alex smith or at best a carson palmer.
Originally posted by DigiMark007No the bears offense was too weak to stack up against the 89 niners. Their defense could easily shut down mcmahon and willie gault and clamp down the run. Bears running game was abysmal in the sbowl.
It might just be that the average age of the forum is fairly low, but it's good that no one has really mentioned anyone before, say, 1980 as a legit contender for this. Dominant as some of them were (we'll use the Steelers as an example) they wouldn't stack up to modern standards. Would the 70's Steelers compete today? Absolutely. I feel like they could have a winning season in today's NFL. But would they be a dynasty? Not even close. Advances in the game, whether it's training techniques, steroids, etc. or improvements to strategy (playbooks were a fraction of what they are today), the game has just moved forward.85 Bears are cliche, but I'll stay with them. Epic defense and running game = competitive and > most any team ever. I'll also reiterate the 98 Broncos and 96 Packers, who aren't mentioned enough (Pack had the best D in the league that year, for example, though most only remember Favre & Co.). I don't value stats so much as a simple eyeball test of teams, and seeing if they'd stack up.
The three step drop that year would put up enough points against this blitz happy defense to get the win.
96 packers arent anywhere near the top imo.
Originally posted by BruceSkywalkerNot even in the top 7 imo.
Greatest single season NFL team in my opinion are the '72 Dophins
Ill name more than a few teams that would have mopped the floor with them.
Well not all of these teams woul dhave mopped the floor wit them but I think the are all better than the 72 dolphins.
84 niners
89 niners
85 bears
94 niners
92 cowboys
98 broncos
03 pats
86 giants
91 redskins
Originally posted by quanchi112
No the bears offense was too weak to stack up against the 89 niners. Their defense could easily shut down mcmahon and willie gault and clamp down the run. Bears running game was abysmal in the sbowl.
Again, you're only counting the SB?? Why? Hell, the Bears dominated that SB. How is it that a curbstomp against teh Pats counts against them? They had one of the more feared running games ever.
As for the 96 Pack, they had the league's top defense that year, anchored by Reggie White in his prime. People forget that in the Brett Favre hype. Awesome pass offense, stifling D, and decent run game. Good coach, a feared returner whose name I forget (dude set the SB record in their win for return yards). All the pieces are there.
Also, you might want to tone down the Niners bias a bit. That list is reeking with it. It's ok to have 89 as the best ever, plenty do, but to have 3 of the top 4 is just humorously bad.
Originally posted by botankus
'03 Pats lost a game 31-0, scored 9 points against the Browns, and also needed a last-second FG to beat the Texans.Even the '98 Falcons weren't that sloppy.
Truth.
One game does not a season make, but there's more than one indicator. If you're 14 point underdogs in the SB, even if you manage to win, it says something about that team's dominance (or lack of it).