PDA

View Full Version : NFL.com's Greatest team of all time.


Ness
03-27-2012, 06:11 AM
I thought this was pretty interesting. The final four teams were a surprise to me. This isn't like America's Game either that was done a few years ago. Non-Super Bowl teams were including early on, but obviously as time went on those were eliminated.

The final four:

2000 Ravens vs. 1984 49ers.

Interesting NFL Films video link about matchup. (http://www.nfl.com/videos/auto/09000d5d827e0f2f/Bracketology-85-Bears-vs-76-Raiders)

1985 Bears vs. 1976 Raiders.

Interesting NFL Films video link about matchup. (http://www.nfl.com/videos/auto/09000d5d827e10bb/Bracketology-2000-Ravens-vs-1984-49ers)

Let the debate begin. Oh and and in case you wanted to see the previous bracket and how the other teams shaped out, it started here:

http://www.nfl.com/features/bracketology/alltimeteams?round=1

Again, I thought it was interesting to see how they included teams that didn't even win the Super Bowl. Cool to see how far they got, at least to me.

Razor
03-27-2012, 06:33 AM
I don't want to be a complete homer, but the 2007 (or 2004) Patriots need to be at least in the conversation. Also, unless I've been told wrong the '86 Bears were even better than the '85 Bears. They just didn't win the Super Bowl.

Shane P. Hallam
03-27-2012, 07:01 AM
I feel like about 10-12 years ago, ESPN or someone did something like this where they took the tape of games and put other teams into it and had the greatest teams of all-time match-up. IIRC, the end was one of the Steeler teams against one of the 49er teams. I wish I could find links to that again.

bigbluedefense
03-27-2012, 07:05 AM
I don't want to be a complete homer, but the 2007 (or 2004) Patriots need to be at least in the conversation. Also, unless I've been told wrong the '86 Bears were even better than the '85 Bears. They just didn't win the Super Bowl.

The 86 Bears were better than the 85 Bears but they blew it vs Washington in the playoffs. They also had some issues at qb that year.

They would have lost to the 86 Giants that year anyway though. That 86 Giant team was more stable at qb and had just as dominant of a defense. LT had something like 22.5 sacks that year or something.

And Parcells had his own version of the 46 that he used as a subpackage, a 3-5-3 defense used the same concepts as the 46.

bigbluedefense
03-27-2012, 07:07 AM
I'm surprised the 70s Steelers aren't in the final four. They absolutely deserve to be there.

And Lombardi's Packers. Those 2 teams should have met in the Finals of this tournament.

I love the 2000 Ravens defense, but that team has no business being in the final 4.

WCH
03-27-2012, 07:40 AM
I'm surprised the 70s Steelers aren't in the final four. They absolutely deserve to be there.

And Lombardi's Packers. Those 2 teams should have met in the Finals of this tournament.

I love the 2000 Ravens defense, but that team has no business being in the final 4.

This a homer post on my part, but Lombardi's Packers won 5 championships in 7 years; and you can't talk about the best teams ever and not include Lombardi's '62 Packers team. They went 13-1 with their loss being to the division rival Detroit Lions, and they beat the Giants for the NFL Championship for the second consecutive season (you know, back in the days when the Packers could beat the Giants in the postseason). The defense allowed only 10.8 PPG and held opposing quarterbacks to a 43.5 QB rating, and they outscored their opponents by 267 points.

I suppose the 12-2 Super Bowl I team of '66 is a decent substitute, if you're limiting it to the Super Bowl era; but those Lombardi teams have to be in the conversation. Super Bowls I and II were actually the second and third years of a three-peat.

Don Vito
03-27-2012, 09:01 AM
I don't want to be a complete homer, but the 2007 (or 2004) Patriots need to be at least in the conversation. Also, unless I've been told wrong the '86 Bears were even better than the '85 Bears. They just didn't win the Super Bowl.

I'll take our 2004 team over our 2007 team any day, and I would definitely take the 04 squad over the 2000 Ravens.

killxswitch
03-27-2012, 09:04 AM
I'll take our 2004 team over our 2007 team any day, and I would definitely take the 04 squad over the 2000 Ravens.

The mid-00s Patriots teams were some of the most balanced football teams in NFL history. Just really good in almost every phase of the game.

Especially the cheating phase :banana: :banana: :banana:

jrdrylie
03-27-2012, 09:10 AM
I have trouble calling the 2000 Ravens one of the greatest teams ever. Sure their defense was great, but the offense was a joke.

Razor
03-27-2012, 09:11 AM
The mid-00s Patriots teams were some of the most balanced football teams in NFL history. Just really good in almost every phase of the game.

Especially the cheating phase :banana: :banana: :banana:

Awww, that's cute. A Colt fan hinting that someone else was violating the integrity of the game..

Something about stones and glasshouses.

killxswitch
03-27-2012, 09:14 AM
Awww, that's cute. A Colt fan hinting that someone else was violating the integrity of the game..

Something about stones and glasshouses.

I'm not hinting and I'm not talking about just integrity. I'm stating clearly that your coach and team cheated and that it taints the teams' accomplishments, including their SBs. Granted, I did it in a jovial banana-dancing manner.

Razor
03-27-2012, 09:17 AM
I'm not hinting and I'm not talking about just integrity. I'm stating clearly that your coach and team cheated and that it taints the teams' accomplishments, including their SBs. Granted, I did it in a jovial banana-dancing manner.

And I'm saying that it's been proved that we cheated in 2007, not before that. You can argue that we did it prior to 2007 (which we probably did), but you can't prove it. What can be proved is Polian pumping in crowd noise in the RCA dome and changing the rules of the game to favor his own QB. I'm not saying we didn't cheat, but to hear it from a Colt fan is just funny.

killxswitch
03-27-2012, 09:43 AM
And I'm saying that it's been proved that we cheated in 2007, not before that. You can argue that we did it prior to 2007 (which we probably did), but you can't prove it. What can be proved is Polian pumping in crowd noise in the RCA dome and changing the rules of the game to favor his own QB. I'm not saying we didn't cheat, but to hear it from a Colt fan is just funny.

1 - Polian is an ass, I hate his rule changing too
2 - the crowd noise thing is bogus and was never proven, because it never happened
3 - **** the Pats

Jvig43
03-27-2012, 09:46 AM
1 - Polian is an ass, I hate his rule changing too
2 - the crowd noise thing is bogus and was never proven, because it never happened
3 - **** the Pats

You my good sir, need to clam down. Jealously is very unbecoming of you :evil_laugh:

killxswitch
03-27-2012, 10:04 AM
You my good sir, need to clam down. Jealously is very unbecoming of you :evil_laugh:

Are you telling me I need to get laid?

A Perfect Score
03-27-2012, 10:29 AM
The 2000 Ravens had Jamal Lewis and Priest Holmes running the ball. Screw you we were a joke! TRENT DILFERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!

Oh yeah, and Shannon Sharpe. And Jermaine Lewis. Awesome sauce.

Brothgar
03-27-2012, 10:38 AM
I don't want to be a complete homer, but the 2007 (or 2004) Patriots need to be at least in the conversation. Also, unless I've been told wrong the '86 Bears were even better than the '85 Bears. They just didn't win the Super Bowl.

They were in the tournament it started with a bunch of teams. this is just the final 4.

Ravens1991
03-27-2012, 11:52 AM
IM shocked the 2000 Ravens got this far. I guess because it is one of the best teams in the lifetime of the common person who is on the internet a lot has a lot to do with it.

killxswitch
03-27-2012, 11:54 AM
IM shocked the 2000 Ravens got this far. I guess because it is one of the best teams in the lifetime of the common person who is on the internet a lot has a lot to do with it.

Probably. It is hard to be objective about a team that was dominant when your parents were children.

yodabear
03-27-2012, 12:16 PM
My feelings....

49ers over Ravens
I wasn't born for the 49ers, but I was for the Ravens. With all do to respect, but the Ravens offense went like 6 games without scoring. If this was best defense...00 Ravens prolly play the 85 Bears, but for best team, I will go with the Niners.

Bears over Raiders
Once again wasn't born for either, but I hear so much about the vaunted 85 Bears.

Bears over 49ers
I am a Midwest guy. The FRIDGE!!!!! AND DITKAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

Ness
03-27-2012, 12:28 PM
I have trouble calling the 2000 Ravens one of the greatest teams ever. Sure their defense was great, but the offense was a joke.

I think the major knock on the 2000 Ravens is that they didn't really play any great quarterbacks that season. The only one I can think of is Rich Gannon who they knocked out in the playoffs. They played a couple of good ones in Mark Brunell and Steve McNair (who really wasn't the passer he would become later on), but everyone one else was mostly average.

Thunder&Lightning
03-27-2012, 12:35 PM
If the 2008 Patriots won the super bowl they would be the #1 team, no questions asked.. But they didnt so fml

bigbluedefense
03-27-2012, 12:41 PM
If the 2008 Patriots won the super bowl they would be the #1 team, no questions asked.. But they didnt so fml

I love Eli Manning.

A Perfect Score
03-27-2012, 12:43 PM
I love Eli Manning.

How anyone could love that inbred, mouthbreathing idiot is beyond me. But I guess I'm not a Giants fan.

Brent
03-27-2012, 01:36 PM
How is it the '84 Niners and not '89?

PoopSandwich
03-27-2012, 01:50 PM
Trent ******* Dilfer.

Leo
03-27-2012, 02:09 PM
I don't want to be a complete homer, but the 2007 (or 2004) Patriots need to be at least in the conversation. Also, unless I've been told wrong the '86 Bears were even better than the '85 Bears. They just didn't win the Super Bowl.They were, but the well-balanced 98' Broncos beat them.

Ness
03-27-2012, 02:52 PM
How is it the '84 Niners and not '89?

Why is this surprising to you? The 1984 49ers beat the 1989 49ers head on in the voting. The 1984 49ers only lost one game that year and pretty much dominated most of the their opponents. I'm not sure what the 1989 team had over the 1984 team being head and shoulders better. The run game was better on that 1984 team with Tyler...and the entire defensive secondary made the Pro Bowl. I don't think that has happened in the NFL since. Montana was also a lot younger and had more mobility. Guys like Jerry Rice, John Taylor, and Brent Jones were certainly more flashy for 89', but the 1984 team was just as dominant on offense.

Lil Quip
03-27-2012, 03:10 PM
I can see why the Ravens did well, even though I don't think they deserves it.

The casual fan, especially younger ones, have a somewhat glorified view of that defense was. They were one of the best of all time, but not far and away better than every other defense.

People, including himself, joke about Dilfer being a SB winning QB, but some people forgot how historically awful that offense was. They had a decent running game, but I think it took at least half of the season for a TD throw to a receiver. I just think there are teams with comparable defenses whose offenses were much much better than the Ravens.

Not hugely knowledgeable, but I see these teams as the frontrunners:
Early Packers
One of the 70's Steelers teams
85 Bears
Late 80's early 90's Cowboys and 49ers teams
Homer pick - 2003 or 2004 Pat teams.

phlysac
03-27-2012, 04:22 PM
Why is this surprising to you? The 1984 49ers beat the 1989 49ers head on in the voting. The 1984 49ers only lost one game that year and pretty much dominated most of the their opponents. I'm not sure what the 1989 team had over the 1984 team being head and shoulders better. The run game was better on that 1984 team with Tyler...and the entire defensive secondary made the Pro Bowl. I don't think that has happened in the NFL since. Montana was also a lot younger and had more mobility. Guys like Jerry Rice, John Taylor, and Brent Jones were certainly more flashy for 89', but the 1984 team was just as dominant on offense.

That '89 team dominated the playoffs like no other, though. They finished 17-2 with both losses by a combined 5 pts.

The playoffs that seasons...

Defeated Vikings 41-13
Defeated Rams 30-3
Defeated Broncos 55-10.

iowatreat54
03-27-2012, 04:27 PM
That '89 team dominated the playoffs like no other, though. They finished 17-2 with both losses by a combined 5 pts.

The playoffs that seasons...

Defeated Vikings 41-13
Defeated Rams 30-3
Defeated Broncos 55-10.

Not by any means attempting to compare, but this post just reminded me of the dominance that was the '85 Bears playoff run:

21-0 over the New York football Giants
24-0 over Los Angeles Rams
46-10 over the New England Patriots

No points allowed until the Super Bowl, then the first TD allowed after up 44-3 early in the 4th quarter. That is what we call raping.

The '85 Bears were really an all universe defense that did anything they want, and Walter Payton. The offensive gameplan was basically give the ball to Walter, or otherwise don't **** up. Sooooo good.

SenorGato
03-27-2012, 04:42 PM
Even if I was a much older person I'd still say it's the 2007 Pats. They fckin HUMILIATED their opponents, especially once people decided to call them cheaters.

Lawlz @ them for not closing the deal. It wouldn't even be a contest if they won the Super Bowl. That offense could give any D at any point in league history fits, especially if given today's refs.

Ness
03-27-2012, 05:14 PM
That '89 team dominated the playoffs like no other, though. They finished 17-2 with both losses by a combined 5 pts.

The playoffs that seasons...

Defeated Vikings 41-13
Defeated Rams 30-3
Defeated Broncos 55-10.

Right, but I'd say the 49ers faced tougher opponents in the 1984 playoffs. Both the Giants and Bears in the middle of the decade and Dan Marino's greatest season as a pro.

Brent
03-27-2012, 05:16 PM
Right, but I'd say the 49ers faced tougher opponents in the 1984 playoffs. Both the Giants and Bears in the middle of the decade and Dan Marino's greatest season as a pro.
Fair enough, it's pretty much a toss up.

phlysac
03-27-2012, 05:21 PM
Not by any means attempting to compare, but this post just reminded me of the dominance that was the '85 Bears playoff run:

21-0 over the New York football Giants
24-0 over Los Angeles Rams
46-10 over the New England Patriots

No points allowed until the Super Bowl, then the first TD allowed after up 44-3 early in the 4th quarter. That is what we call raping.

The '85 Bears were really an all universe defense that did anything they want, and Walter Payton. The offensive gameplan was basically give the ball to Walter, or otherwise don't **** up. Sooooo good.

Agree. '85 Bears are in the game, in my opinion. I'm just stuck whether I'd want the '84 or '89 49ers to face them.

Ness
03-27-2012, 05:23 PM
Agree. '85 Bears are in the game, in my opinion. I'm just stuck whether I'd want the '84 or '89 49ers to face them.

The 1984 49ers could have easily had a perfect season if not for a bogus call on Eric Wright in the endzone over John Stallworth by a line judge, according to Dwight Hicks. Plus, Montana pre-back surgery? I think the choice is easy for me.

Steady Lurkin
03-27-2012, 06:37 PM
The 86 Bears were better than the 85 Bears but they blew it vs Washington in the playoffs. They also had some issues at qb that year.

They would have lost to the 86 Giants that year anyway though. That 86 Giant team was more stable at qb and had just as dominant of a defense. LT had something like 22.5 sacks that year or something.

And Parcells had his own version of the 46 that he used as a subpackage, a 3-5-3 defense used the same concepts as the 46.

Similar with the 70s Steelers. The 76 squad was the best one, but were so crippled by injuries come playoff time that Oakland finally got past them.

The Steelers defenses of the 1970s are legendary, but the 1976 unit was the best (slightly better than the '75 squad). Here's why: 28. That's how many points the Steel Curtain surrendered in the last nine games of the season. That's a total. As a result, Pittsburgh, which started the season 1-4, made it all the way to the AFC Championship Game, which they lost to the Raiders 24-7. (It's worth noting that Pittsburgh running backs Franco Harris and Rocky Bleier were both injured in that contest.)

The '76 Steelers didn't have it easy -- their opponents had a .528 winning percentage.

http://espn.go.com/page2/s/list/bestNFLdefense.html

They also had 5 shutouts over the course of the season.

Iamcanadian
03-27-2012, 09:55 PM
I feel like about 10-12 years ago, ESPN or someone did something like this where they took the tape of games and put other teams into it and had the greatest teams of all-time match-up. IIRC, the end was one of the Steeler teams against one of the 49er teams. I wish I could find links to that again.

Green Bay under Lombardi should be there and it should be against the Steelers or 49's. Nobody else belongs in the conversation but of course, NFL Network has become nothing more than a shill for promoting the NFL without any regard for the truth.

phlysac
03-27-2012, 10:46 PM
The 1984 49ers could have easily had a perfect season if not for a bogus call on Eric Wright in the endzone over John Stallworth by a line judge, according to Dwight Hicks. Plus, Montana pre-back surgery? I think the choice is easy for me.

And Wersching missed a FG to tie it. I watched both teams, and I can't put my finger on it, but that '89 team just seemed dominant. Could also be that I was still really young in '84.

That and adding arguably the greatest player of all-time, can't be minimized.


Side-by-Side

QB - Joe Montana | Joe Montana
RB - Wendell Tyler | Roger Craig
FB - Roger Craig | Tom Rathman
WR - Dwight Clark | Jerry Rice
WR - Freddie Solomon | John Taylor
TE - Earl Cooper | Brent Jones
LT - Bubba Paris | Bubba Paris
LG - John Ayers | Guy McIntyre
C - Fred Quillan | Jesse Sapolu
RG - Randy Cross | Bruce Collie
RT - Keith Fahnhorst | Harris Barton

DE - Jim Stuckey | Pierce Holt
NT - Manu Tuiasosopo | Michael Carter
DE - Dwaine Board | Kevin Fagan
OLB - Dan Bunz | Charles Haley
ILB - Riki Ellison | Matt Millen
ILB - Jack Reynolds | Mike Walter
OLB - Keena Turner | Keena Turner
CB - Ronnie Lott | Tim McKyer
CB - Eric Wright | Don Griffin
S - Carlton Williamson | Chet Brooks
S - Dwight Hicks | Ronnie Lott

Jvig43
03-28-2012, 12:35 AM
Even if I was a much older person I'd still say it's the 2007 Pats. They fckin HUMILIATED their opponents, especially once people decided to call them cheaters.

Lawlz @ them for not closing the deal. It wouldn't even be a contest if they won the Super Bowl. That offense could give any D at any point in league history fits, especially if given today's refs.

I used to get so mad at Forenci for trying to tell me the Giants were just the better team.

Ness
03-28-2012, 12:53 AM
And Wersching missed a FG to tie it. I watched both teams, and I can't put my finger on it, but that '89 team just seemed dominant. Could also be that I was still really young in '84.

That and adding arguably the greatest player of all-time, can't be minimized.


Side-by-Side

QB - Joe Montana | Joe Montana
RB - Wendell Tyler | Roger Craig
FB - Roger Craig | Tom Rathman
WR - Dwight Clark | Jerry Rice
WR - Freddie Solomon | John Taylor
TE - Earl Cooper | Brent Jones
LT - Bubba Paris | Bubba Paris
LG - John Ayers | Guy McIntyre
C - Fred Quillan | Jesse Sapolu
RG - Randy Cross | Bruce Collie
RT - Keith Fahnhorst | Harris Barton

DE - Jim Stuckey | Pierce Holt
NT - Manu Tuiasosopo | Michael Carter
DE - Dwaine Board | Kevin Fagan
OLB - Dan Bunz | Charles Haley
ILB - Riki Ellison | Matt Millen
ILB - Jack Reynolds | Mike Walter
OLB - Keena Turner | Keena Turner
CB - Ronnie Lott | Tim McKyer
CB - Eric Wright | Don Griffin
S - Carlton Williamson | Chet Brooks
S - Dwight Hicks | Ronnie Lott

Still, it was only one loss, and a close one. And one that probably should have been a victory if not for that bad call. And having Jerry Rice was a novelty sure, but that is really more for style points in my opinion. Like I said, the offense was just as good in 1984. They even averaged more points per game. The defense also allowed less points per game. The 1984 team had great players, they just weren't household names.

TheFinisher
03-28-2012, 07:43 AM
Yea I saw this and stopped following it after the 02 Bucs won over the 78 Cowboys in the 1st Round, too many fans that don't do their HW and just voted for the more recent teams that they recognized. Sure that Bucs team had a really good D, but so did that Cowboys team which was led by arguably the best defensive player of the era and probably the best player in franchise history.

21LLTHIiRoQ

And there's no way I'd take a Brad Johnson led offense over a backfield that featured Staubach and Dorsett.

This would have been more interesting if they let former coaches/players vote instead of fans.

Razor
03-28-2012, 07:46 AM
They were, but the well-balanced 98' Broncos beat them.

That accounts for the 2007 team not being there, but many Patriot fans feel that the 2004 were even better. Corey Dillon was raping that year, the defense was as nasty as ever and Tom Brady, well... He's Tom Brady. That was a good team all around. I didn't start watching NFL until '99 so I didn't see the '98 Broncos. But the '04 Pats were special.

phlysac
03-28-2012, 07:50 AM
And having Jerry Rice was a novelty sure, but that is really more for style points in my opinion.

I can accept '84 over '89 but I have a hard time just dismissing Rice's impact like that.

boknows34
03-28-2012, 09:13 PM
There's been an upset (or two) in the semi-finals.

http://www.nfl.com/features/bracketology/alltimeteams?module=HP11_hot_topics

Ravens1991
03-28-2012, 09:32 PM
I think this is a good showing of how strong the Ravens fan base is despite being the 2nd youngest franchise in the NFL.

nepg
03-28-2012, 09:44 PM
If the 2008 Patriots won the super bowl they would be the #1 team, no questions asked.. But they didnt so fml
Yeah, NFL wouldn't have anything to do if that had happened because it'd be such a ******* no-brainer. They killed everyone while playing the hardest schedule of any team that year (and it wasn't like other teams were having down years of any sort). Just absolute domination.

WCH
03-29-2012, 08:10 AM
And there's no way I'd take a Brad Johnson led offense over a backfield that featured Staubach and Dorsett.

Quoted for truth.

Also, I'm apparently the only person who doesn't think the 2004 Pats belong in the "Best Team Ever" discussion.

Gay Ork Wang
03-29-2012, 10:05 AM
It shows how stupid fan voting is

Monomach
03-29-2012, 10:43 AM
They would have lost to the 86 Giants that year anyway though. That 86 Giant team was more stable at qb and had just as dominant of a defense.The Giants allowed 236 points vs the Bears 165 points. That's not "just as dominant." Seriously, now...the 86 Bears allowed 11.7 points per game. That's just a stupid number when you think about it.

The reason the Bears didn't repeat as champs? The dirtiest hit in NFL history, courtesy of the Packers' Charles Martin.

lTLlaMY_9PM

The backup completed 49% of his passes and had 2 TDs to 10 INTs...still getting a record of 7-0 in his 7 starts. Somehow (170 rushing yards per game), the Bears STILL ended the season with a better point differential than the Giants. So, yeah. The reason the 1986 Bears aren't the greatest team in history is Charles Martin cheating.

Iamcanadian
03-29-2012, 03:38 PM
It shows how stupid fan voting is

I totally agree, fans give little credence to older teams and tend to vote for their favourites whether they deserve it or not.
This is just a gimmick to keep pro football in fans minds during the off season and really doesn't correspond to reality.

mightytitan9
03-29-2012, 07:42 PM
the concept is interesting, but teams from several years ago wouldnt even compete with todays teams

Tony Romo Fanxx420xx
03-29-2012, 10:57 PM
just wait after this season th 2012 cowboys will be the greatest team ever youll see

Iamcanadian
03-30-2012, 09:23 AM
the concept is interesting, but teams from several years ago wouldnt even compete with todays teams

Today's teams have to deal with FA and as teams aren't close to the finished products that teams of the past were. I'd say a team today riddled with cap limitations couldn't come close to a team from the past who didn't have to worry about FA.

mightytitan9
03-30-2012, 11:17 AM
Today's teams have to deal with FA and as teams aren't close to the finished products that teams of the past were. I'd say a team today riddled with cap limitations couldn't come close to a team from the past who didn't have to worry about FA.

the game is different today. QBs back then didn't have the arm QBs today did, they didn't have to read the same type of defenses QBs do either. If you threw teams 20+ years old some of the defenses from today, they would make a lot of mistakes.

Let's not forget the most popular thing in the 70s and 80s (and even part of the 90s) were the big bruising backs chugging away on first and 2nd down and throwing when they had to on 3rd down.

Teams like the Raiders would get flagged and suspended by the NFL rules today, and the Steelers couldn't run the same defense. We saw a great decline in Mel Blounts production after the NFL changed the rules.

Take the 76 raiders for example, who are in the championship. Do you really think they could compete at all with the Ravens from 2000 if they really played a game? That's the Raiders who have a 265 Art Shell, 255 Gene Upshaw, 247 Dave Dalby, 260 George Beuhler, and 258 John Vella on the offensive line.

I don't care who you are, offensive and defensive lines from the past would get slaughtered by todays players, even average players today would likely have good games against them.

Then you factor in the speed of all the players in todays game, it's not even close

Ness
03-30-2012, 03:54 PM
the game is different today. QBs back then didn't have the arm QBs today did, they didn't have to read the same type of defenses QBs do either. If you threw teams 20+ years old some of the defenses from today, they would make a lot of mistakes.

Let's not forget the most popular thing in the 70s and 80s (and even part of the 90s) were the big bruising backs chugging away on first and 2nd down and throwing when they had to on 3rd down.

Teams like the Raiders would get flagged and suspended by the NFL rules today, and the Steelers couldn't run the same defense. We saw a great decline in Mel Blounts production after the NFL changed the rules.

Take the 76 raiders for example, who are in the championship. Do you really think they could compete at all with the Ravens from 2000 if they really played a game? That's the Raiders who have a 265 Art Shell, 255 Gene Upshaw, 247 Dave Dalby, 260 George Beuhler, and 258 John Vella on the offensive line.

I don't care who you are, offensive and defensive lines from the past would get slaughtered by todays players, even average players today would likely have good games against them.

Then you factor in the speed of all the players in todays game, it's not even close
Depends how you want to factor the comparisons. Depends on what rules you are playing by. If you were to take a team from the past, and have all of their players exist in their prime in this generation, having grown up with newer rules, modern technology, etc. they would still be good players. Unfortunately there are too many variables.

Bucs_Rule
03-30-2012, 07:03 PM
Depends how you want to factor the comparisons. Depends on what rules you are playing by. If you were to take a team from the past, and have all of their players exist in their prime in this generation, having grown up with newer rules, modern technology, etc. they would still be good players. Unfortunately there are too many variables.

I agree with all of that. The rules for the first half could be the rules of one team and the second half the rules of the other.

WCH
03-30-2012, 08:06 PM
I've seen this type of internet debate dozens -- probably even hundreds of times. People (on both sides of the debate) usually overlook things. Strength and Conditioning programs improve. Nutrition Science improves. Steroids improve. Strategy improves. Schemes improve.

In 20 years, some punk kid is going to tell each and every one of us that Michael Jordan wasn't that great, because he *only* had a 42" vertical, and he *only* stood 6'6" (and at a time when many shooting guards were only 6'3" no less!).

And most of us will say: "Pfffft! I saw Jordan play, and he was the GOAT! Now get off my lawn!!!"

As Ness said: There are too many variables.

WCH
03-30-2012, 08:20 PM
Double post. :(

Ness
03-30-2012, 08:52 PM
The 1976 Raiders are crowned as the greatest team of all time on NFL.com. Very stunning. That being said, that was a great team. I wish I could have watched some of those players play.

RaiderNation
03-31-2012, 12:05 AM
Love the '76 Raiders team, without a doubt one of the top teams in NFL history. I thought they'd get far, but I must say I'm surprised to see fans voted for the Raiders. 16-1 team that had multiple HoF's and John Madden at HC

armageddon
04-01-2012, 10:24 AM
There is no way the 76 Raiders could have stopped the GSOT if the game was indeed on turf.

Rosebud
04-01-2012, 10:27 AM
I don't want to be a complete homer, but the 2007 (or 2004) Patriots need to be at least in the conversation. Also, unless I've been told wrong the '86 Bears were even better than the '85 Bears. They just didn't win the Super Bowl.

I think you mean the 86 Giants. :freakout:

Brent
04-01-2012, 01:09 PM
I think you mean the 86 Giants. :freakout:
No, he meant the 1998 Minnesota Vikings.

YAYareaRB
04-01-2012, 07:57 PM
i always thought the 1994 49ers were damn good.