Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who is the Greatest SB Team Ever?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by PACKmanN View Post
    It has to be the 96 Packers and if we didnt have an IMO overrated HC in Homgren we could have won it in 97.
    1. No, just no. Im one of the guys who believes the 96 Packers are overlooked but come on now. Ill let BF51 handle this one.

    2. Holmgren is NOTHING NEAR overrated. He may be underrated. Him and BP I believe were the closest HCs in NFL history to winning SBs with 2 teams. His resume with qbs is through the roof. Its simply amazing how many qbs he's developed. And none of them were 1st rounders.

    I can go on and on about Holmgren. I have a ton of respect for the guy. Look at the coaching tree too by the way. Holmgren was the man. Amazing coach, and far from overrated.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by PACKmanN View Post
      It has to be the 96 Packers and if we didnt have an IMO overrated HC in Homgren we could have won it in 97.
      I would LOVE to see the 1996 Packers team go up against the 1981 Raiders, 1985 Bears, 1986 Giants, 1988 49ers, 1992 Cowboys, 1991 Redskins, or many other teams. (Not trying to miss anyone here, just making a point)

      The Packers were not that good, but they were talented. They went up against an overmatched Pats team, but they weren't so dominant overall that they weren't beatable. You think they would have rushed for more than 40 yards against any of those defenses?



      I am "America's Poster"... http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/for...9&postcount=25

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by njx9
        jesus h. christ. what's next? "what team named the pittsburgh steelers is the best team ever?!" or "the pittsburgh steelers... best team ever!!!!" or maybe "how the pittsburgh steelers founded all western civilization, invented the internet, helped jack bauer rid the world of terrorism AND stopped a secret alien invasion the morning before winning their 82nd consecutive super bowl and just before being elected collective president after which football was disbanded because really, with the steelers in the league, what's the point, right?"
        Yeah, I noticed that about his threads too, lol.

        Homerism is cute sometimes. I need a good laugh here and there.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by bigbluedefense View Post
          1. No, just no. Im one of the guys who believes the 96 Packers are overlooked but come on now. Ill let BF51 handle this one.

          2. Holmgren is NOTHING NEAR overrated. He may be underrated. Him and BP I believe were the closest HCs in NFL history to winning SBs with 2 teams. His resume with qbs is through the roof. Its simply amazing how many qbs he's developed. And none of them were 1st rounders.

          I can go on and on about Holmgren. I have a ton of respect for the guy. Look at the coaching tree too by the way. Holmgren was the man. Amazing coach, and far from overrated.
          Holmgren's direct coaching tree:

          Mike Sherman, Andy Reid, Ray Rhodes, John Gruden, Steve Mariucci, Dick Jauron, Marty Mornenweig (sp)



          I am "America's Poster"... http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/for...9&postcount=25

          Comment


          • #20
            Steel Man arguing with his twin about the Steelers:

            "The Steelers are awesome!"

            "No, the Steelers are the best team ever!"

            "Wrong! The Steelers are the greatest franchise in football."

            "Come on! The Steelers cannot be beaten by anyone."

            And so on...



            I am "America's Poster"... http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/for...9&postcount=25

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by bsaza2358 View Post
              Holmgren's direct coaching tree:

              Mike Sherman, Andy Reid, Ray Rhodes, John Gruden, Steve Mariucci, Dick Jauron, Marty Mornenweig (sp)
              Not too shabby.

              The system he runs is a model for qb success too. He's had qb success everywhere he goes.

              And Andy Reid has taken the same approach, and has the same success. One of the more overlooked aspects of Reid's coaching is how he can have success with backup Qbs. I mean, he took Feeley to the NFC championship game. This past year they had the #2 offense in the league with no WRs and Jeff Garcia at qb.

              Says something about the system. Very impressive.

              EDIT: Philly's WRs are a little overlooked. But they have a catch by committee approach that most teams dont do. And its very successful in its own right. You notice that those players generally have a drop off in production after they leave Philly, so the system is definately a big part of the success.

              Comment


              • #22
                In regards to the salary cap era choices I have to say the 2004 Pats over the 2000 Ravens. On defence, no question the Ravens were about as good as it gets, but they had to be, the offence was inept. The Patriot defence would certainly take a backseat to that Raven unit, but they were excellent as well. Less dominating for sure, and not the game changing big play threat, but more than up to the task of controlling the oppostions offence.

                The difference is the offense NE put on the field was light years ahead of anything the Ravens had. THey were not the Colts or the Rams game in ,game out but they could put up the numbers if need be. They often employed a ball control system and were more intent on controlling the clock and field position.

                On a 1-10 scale I would say

                Defense:
                Ravens 10
                Patriots 8

                Offense:
                Ravens 4
                Patriots 8

                Fairly close overall, I just have to give the nod to the more balanced team. In a sport where its win or go home, I don't want to go into that game with the pressure squarely on one units shoulders. The Raven D was dominant , but they had to be. New England had the "luxury " of having two units who could pick up the slack for the other depending apon the opponent.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by bsaza2358 View Post
                  I would LOVE to see the 1996 Packers team go up against the 1981 Raiders, 1985 Bears, 1986 Giants, 1988 49ers, 1992 Cowboys, 1991 Redskins, or many other teams. (Not trying to miss anyone here, just making a point)

                  The Packers were not that good, but they were talented. They went up against an overmatched Pats team, but they weren't so dominant overall that they weren't beatable. You think they would have rushed for more than 40 yards against any of those defenses?
                  and thats what pissed me off. We had a very talented team but for some reason when it came down to the biggest game we looked like little kids out there. Im not saying that Holgren was a bad coach but I belive he should have been better prepared for thoses games.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Holmgren can get a little arrogant about his game planning, but he had also lost almost all of the above-named coaches from his staff. He didn't have the brain trust from before, so he was a little more limited in 1997.

                    Fact is, the 1996 Packers were an awesome team, but their talent level is nowhere near that of the big time SB-winning squads from the 60's, 70's, 80's, and early 90's. Just fact.



                    I am "America's Poster"... http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/for...9&postcount=25

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by bigbluedefense View Post
                      72 Colts werent that bad of a team. That just happened to be the ugliest SB ever. But the team itself wasn't that bad.
                      Oh, do I remember that game. My Patriots got tooled ! I remember Payton getting helicoptered early on and feeling that we were gonna crush the big bad Bears..... OUCH !

                      They probably were the greatest team, but I think you get a ton of pushback from people due to the opponent in the SB.New England was THE cinderella team. 3 wild card victories, all on the road, clearly not the team that had the most talent in the AFC. If they had done the same to a top seed team I don't think there would be much question.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        The 1990 Giants did win that Super Bowl, but the Bills are widely considered the better team in terms of talent. If those teams played 10 times, the Bills would have won 6-7 times. The disparity wasn't all that great, but the Bills had more talent. Parcells outcoached Levy.



                        I am "America's Poster"... http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/for...9&postcount=25

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by njx9
                          also: i'm not sure i buy the 98 broncos (as much as i'd like to) in a greatest list. they were good, but they weren't one of the best (granted they were in the "runners up" area).

                          on a sidenote, didn't the 90 giants beat the bills by 2 in the super bowl? i don't remember that team (irregardless of that game) being highly impressive. what'd i miss?
                          I put the Broncos on the list because they steam rolled the competition. They were 14-0 and were very close to be undefeated but just choked it at the end. They were so dominant on offense, they benched TD for the 4th quarter of like 7 games, and he still had 1900+ rushing yards! Thats amazing. They went on to destroy and deficate everyone in the playoffs (although the Jets had a chance if they didnt fumble so much), I just think they were impressive in how dominant they were over the course of the season.

                          In regards to the 90 Giants, I think anytime you can lose your starting RB and QB to season ending injury in week 1/2, and still go on to win the SB, beating what was essentially the 89 49ers team in the NFC championship game then a Buffalo Bill team in the SB that outscored its opponents in the playoffs by 92 points, thats pretty damn impressive.

                          One thing alot of people overlook about that 90 team. Our injuries. Yes, we squeeked out a SB win, but what if we had Simms and Hampton healthy? It wouldnt even be close, we wouldve been statistically a much better team.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by bsaza2358 View Post
                            The 1990 Giants did win that Super Bowl, but the Bills are widely considered the better team in terms of talent. If those teams played 10 times, the Bills would have won 6-7 times. The disparity wasn't all that great, but the Bills had more talent. Parcells outcoached Levy.
                            Didn't that team have 4 shots at a B title and come up -fer ? You can not make statements like " the Bills would have won 6-7 times " when YOU LOST FOUR TIMES !!

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Um, I'm an Eagles fan, so I'm pretty unbiased. Fact is that the Giants needed to throw a "perfect game" to win. The Bills didn't execute, and Parcells outcoached Levy. It's a fact. Even the Giants fans won't argue with Buffalo being a more talented team at the time.



                              I am "America's Poster"... http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/for...9&postcount=25

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by bsaza2358 View Post
                                Um, I'm an Eagles fan, so I'm pretty unbiased. Fact is that the Giants needed to throw a "perfect game" to win. The Bills didn't execute, and Parcells outcoached Levy. It's a fact. Even the Giants fans won't argue with Buffalo being a more talented team at the time.
                                Buffalo was definately a more talented team. No doubt.

                                I think coaching staffs should be considered part of the team, but as far as player talent, Buffalo had more talent on that field then we did. They shouldve won.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X

                                Debug Information