Greatest Team Ever if they had to play by 2009 rules?
by TJBOLT on Aug 9, 2009 1:19 AM PDT
18 comments
When arguing about the greatest teams in NFL history the only reasonable comparison is according to the historical context of their era. But if you remove historical context and if you really had them play with today's rules who would be greatest team ever???. If you enforce currents rules and take into account the size and speed of players currently in the NFL that would almost by definition eliminate teams from before mid 80's. Just consider the great packers teams being 50 pounds outweighed in both lines of scrimmage or Ray Nitchske facing and trying to cover RB, TE's and WR's in spread formation absolute disaster.
My top 5 if they actually had to play:
1) 1989 49ers: No team in my opinion had a higher level of play by the time the playoffs hit, their zone blocking scheme would reduce their their size disadvantage in the line. Add a Joe Montana & Jerry Rice in their primes, and a good to very good defense, scary to any team ever.
2) 1992 Cowboys: Out of the last 20 years I would probably say this team was the most talented and deep roster we have seen and it's probably not close. The cowboys should send draft picks from here to eternity just to try to even out the Hershel Walker trade. A team that even by today's standards has a very big offensive line add a the Emmitt-Troy-Michael triumvirate in their prime and a number 1 ranked defense, just awesome talent.
3) 2004 Patriots: The best of the patriots teams that actually won a Super Bowl, it included a Tom Brady in his prime a 1500 yard Corey Dillon, a defense with they key players still in their prime: Bruschi, Harrison, McGinest and many more. Add a spread formation offense style that would drive nuts any team from the past.
4) 1996 Packers: One of the few teams to actually finish number 1 in both offense and defense, on offense a in his prime Brett Favre with weapons galore (Levens, Bennett, Rison, Chmura, Freeman). On defense a big time defense with Reggie White and Leroy Butler. Very balanced and in general a very dificult matchup.
5) 2000 Ravens: I'm going out on a limb on this one, but a team with 16 game record for points allowed has to be considered and the greatest run defense we have ever seen. It's a team that almost by definition would defeat teams that live of their running game. They wouldn't win a tournament but they would be horrible matchup for run heavy teams.
P.S: I would have the 2007 patriots as my 3rd team if they actually won the super bowl. But lets keep it to super bowl winners.
This my list, give me yours. Let the arguing start
This FanPost was written by a member of the Bolts From The Blue community and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Bolts From The Blue editors or SB Nation.
1 recs |
18 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
I think the 1994 49ers might be my pick
That offense was amazing, Steve Young, Rice, Taylor, Waters, William Floyd, Brent Jones. Defensively they had Norton, Plummer, Mann, Rickey Jackson, Young, Subblefield, Deion Sanders and others. Check out the starting lineups from the SB that year vs. the chargers. Makes me wonder why we even showed up…
by Stephen (shaynes41) on Aug 10, 2009 6:34 AM PDT reply actions
I have to agree the 94 49ers were at leat better than the Ravens
I’m not a 49er fan but out of the eyeball test (meaning out of my own perception) 3/8 best teams I have ever seen were 49er teams. The 84 49ers and the 94 49ers are forgotten by many people but they were just dominant.
So my list should probably should say not the best teams, but the most difficult matchups considering their size, speed, talent and scheme.
Let me just quick double check some of these teams
Looking at FootballOutsiders.com, which has Team Efficiency numbers going back to 1995, I obviously can’t verify the top 2, but I can at least audit 3-5. In my opinion, if they didn’t produce well enough to be the top team in the league, then they probably should be on the list (but others’ opinions may vary).
The #3 team here finished second to the Pittsburgh Steelers in total DVOA and 3rd to the Bills and Steelers in weighted DVOA (which gives extra credit to teams that finish the season strong). They were 3rd on offense, 6th on defense and 16th on special teams. The Steelers that year were 8th on offense, 3rd on defense and 10th on special teams. The Bills were 21st on offense, 1st on defense and 1st on special teams.
The #4 team is legit. The finished #1 in DVOA and #1 in Weight DVOA. Their DVOA number is one of the highest ever since 1995. They were 3rd on offense, 1st on defense and 2nd on special teams. It is worth noting that their offensive numbers don’t rank very well compared to other years (for instance, it would rank 11th in 2004).
The #5 team I went into this the most skeptical about. Did they really play a truly great offense? What would have happened if they had played, for instance, the 2007 Patriots, the greatest offense of all time? Would their defense still be enough considering that they had almost 0 offense? I think they were just the right team, in the right year, and were very fortunate to play against Kerry Collins when they need one last win to get their rings. They finished 3rd in DVOA and 5th in weight DVOA. They finished 23rd on offense, 2nd on defense and 3rd on special teams. That second place finish may shock some, but it was a very close (only .7% off) with the Titans (the #1 team in DVOA and weighted DVOA and the defending AFC champion). Both of the really good offenses in the league that year, the Colts and Rams, were horrid on defense. The non-Chargers AFC West teams (KC, Den and Oak) I would expect to be the only real challenge for the Ravens since they all sported above average offenses and decent defenses. The Ravens played two of those teams in the playoffs and held them both touchdown-less. Still, while the Ravens certainly earned and deserved their Super Bowl, I’m not sure it should put them in the top 5 on this list.
Who would I put on the list? I’d have to put the 2007 Patriots #1. They are simply the greatest team that has played over the last 15 years (and in my opinion, all time) and I would rank them higher than those 1992 Cowboys or 1989 49ers. They just happened to lose the wrong game to the New York Giants. So you put them #1, and then to stop my contrarian attitude I’ll just bump down the top two listed in the post. Dump the 2004 Patriots. Keep the Packers at #4. And for #5 I have to get unscientific and go before 1995, because there just aren’t any other great teams beyond the 1996 Packers and 2007 Patriots. I’ll got with the 1985 Bears. Their offense was quite solid and I’m pretty sure Payton would do find in today’s NFL. Their “get the QB and clog the running lanes” defense could work similarly to the Eagles of the 2000s and they’ve one of the top 3 or 4 most successful franchises of the decade.
Memo to baseball managers: You manufacture runs by NOT making outs, not by making them on purpose.
in that first paragraph
I used the word “should” when I should have said “shouldn’t”
Memo to baseball managers: You manufacture runs by NOT making outs, not by making them on purpose.
that's all right
I actually read it as shouldn’t… weird
by Stephen (shaynes41) on Aug 10, 2009 3:30 PM PDT up reply actions
Wonko you obviously are well read but I did add a disclaimer
I know the 85 Bears are a better team in historical context than the 2000 Ravens, but who would win if they actually played, you would give coaches from 85 Bears one week to study and vice versa, and they would face a 2000 Ravens team that already has the adjusted protection schemes to face 46 defense. And they would outweigh the 85 Bears by at least 20 pounds on each line of scimmage.
Can you honestly tell me the 85 Bears would win??
I can’t, it was a team based on a gimmick defense they required the creation at the line protection adjustments. The 2000 Ravens already did those.
Lets make it simple 5 best teams taking into account their size, speed, scheme, and coaching. I know historically speaking the 72 dolphins are a great team can they even beat the 2008 chargers highly unlickly considering they were built for a running era, the chargers would either plow over them because of the size advantage, or spread them out with a and dink and dunk passing game till their noses bled. And this was an 8-8 mediocre team.
P.S. I also think the ‘07 Patriots are the best I have ever seen, but in life one must be clutch. As a good friend told me (and yes he’s Yankee fan), does it matter that the Mariners broke our single season win record, nope they had to win the tilte for it to matter.
Wonko your arguments or completely factual in a historical context, but once you add the size, the speed and the schemes the equation obviously get slanted towards more modern teams.
by TJBOLT on Aug 11, 2009 12:06 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I understand the 85 Bears stuff
But I still wouldn’t put the Ravens in the top 10. Probably not the top 20 either. The team was very fortunate to win that Super Bowl and their size, scheme, coaching, etc. while excellent would not be good enough in most years because of their poor offense.
Judging the greatness of the 2007 Patriots by their 1 loss is such a cop out. Many of the greatest teams lost more than one game and their wins weren’t nearly as impressive. Clutch is a matter or opportunity, luck, and a small amount of skill. I submit that you need to play by your own rules. You dismiss some teams because they don’t fit your needs-to-play-by-2009-rules criteria, but then dismiss the one team that would excel the best under those circumstances.
Memo to baseball managers: You manufacture runs by NOT making outs, not by making them on purpose.
It woulnd't be a question if the Patriots won the game against the Giants
I agree the Patriots would be greatest team ever if they finished their season undefeated, they would be the greatest team not only in a historical context but in battle royale time machine version.
I just can’t cross the line to give them that title without winning the championship I know its nitpicking, but for me the entry into the discussion is winning a championship. Lets agree to disagree.
Maybe the Patriots will just put the discussion to bed and go undefeated this year. Before they traded for Derek Burgess I didn’t think an undefeated season was possible in ’09, but their greatest weakness (pass rush) was adressed and they will favored in a every game this season.
IDK
They nearly lost to a Charger team with no LT or Antonio Gates.
"You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the damn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all." - Earl Weaver
by Sam (sdsuaztec4) on Aug 11, 2009 10:28 PM PDT up reply actions
So
Should I eliminate the 1992 Cowboys because they lost to a 6-10 Rams?
Or eliminate the 1996 Packer because they lost to two 9-7 teams?
The 2000 Ravens lost to an 8-8 team, I guess they are gone too.
The 2004 Patriots lost to the 4-12 Dolphins team. They’ll have to go too.
Damn there aren’t going to be any teams left if I keep having eliminate teams that lost.
Memo to baseball managers: You manufacture runs by NOT making outs, not by making them on purpose.
My 2 cents worth
First off I am not into, today players being bigger and faster stuff…..today’s supplements/workout routines would produced fairly substantial players and I personally think the game was tougher physically then, there would be no Randy Moss pouts or TO finger pointing so I am gonna declare all things equal….The sad thing about being old is body doesn’t work worth a damn, but good thing is I got to see to many of these teams in person….My last caveat is I am not into stats, stats are manipulated and deceiving, great for fantasy football; but no measure on immeasurables. If a pass is in the air and has to be caught no matter what, Lance, Randy Moss or TO and your coaching career depends on it….coaches will forget the spectacular and go with who drops the least and who will make the over pressured catch
So back to task at hand, I like the recent 07 Patriot team and 72 Miami for their consistency of getting the job done…winning that many in a row is just flat tough
89 and 94 49’ers offensively scary and not bad ‘D’
My top 4 are based on opponent dread of playing, because you know a loss is coming, you know injuries are coming and is just flat out going to be long day: 85 Bears/79 Steelers/64 Packers/71 Cowboys….my edge surprisingly is the 70’s Steelers and why is because long before Ravens were led by Mr. Lewis & Co, there was the Steel Curtain and to a man that team hit hard so your losses was punctuated by an extremely long jacuzzi week afterward.
Personally my 2 favorite were the 63 Chargers & 84 Raiders
So
If Lance goes over the middle to make a catch he would have made in 1963, but instead of the 5’10 170 lb safety running a 4.6 to hit him he collides with a 6’3 230 lb safety running a 4.3 that he’s still going to be able to take the hit? I’m not going to speculate what would happen the first time, let alone the 20th time, but it doesn’t seem like that difference would be trivial. No matter how many pouting Randy Moss’ you have, it won’t overcome losing star players due to injuries.
Memo to baseball managers: You manufacture runs by NOT making outs, not by making them on purpose.
but this isn't the 1963 Lance
It’s the 2009 Lance.
He isn’t smoking a pack of Marlboros between two a days, he has had proper nutrition and weight training since he was 15, he is bigger and faster and stronger and has more endurance. Plus, your 6-3 safety won’t catch Lance because your 6-3 safety was suspended last week after he crushed some other WR with a helmet to helmet hit.
by Stephen (shaynes41) on Aug 13, 2009 4:27 PM PDT up reply actions
According to the original post
That’s not how it works. If I wanted to get all technical I would say that the concept here is a time machine grabs all the players from 1963 Chargers (or whoever) and plops them on a football field in 2009 with 2009 Refs, 2009 Opponent and a 2009 stadium. So Lance will still be the same Lance everything else changes.
I base this off of the sentence: “Just consider the great packers teams being 50 pounds outweighed in both lines of scrimmage or Ray Nitchske facing and trying to cover RB, TE’s and WR’s in spread formation absolute disaster.”
Memo to baseball managers: You manufacture runs by NOT making outs, not by making them on purpose.
by Wonko on Aug 13, 2009 4:53 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Posted a shade too soon
I don’t think the the 1962 Packers would beat the 2007 Patriots, depth of team and league much different; how ever I do believe some players could transcend the time in which they played. Lance was extremely fast down the field, a bit tougher physically than Moss (even though smaller), and an unbelievable vertical leap. I also believe Tom Brady would have been a great QB in 1975, his stats just would be different
Stats are just overplayed abit too much; Denver went to several Super Bowls with lines that weighed 20-30 pounds less then league…it goes with system and the time
One of my points was
That the smaller, less-conditioned players would be vulnerable to playing the whole season. There is not a doubt in mind that the top players of the 60s and 70s could make an impact in an NFL game today. The question is how many games could they do it for?
Memo to baseball managers: You manufacture runs by NOT making outs, not by making them on purpose.
Lots of things change some don't
Middle linebackers: all 3 form different times and considered the big hitter of their day, I simply don’t see much difference in physical size, each brought the wood to every play
Jack Lambert 6-4 225 (28 interceptions, 17 fumble recoveries over 10 years)
Ray Lewis 6-1 245 (28 interceptions, 15 Fumble recoveries, 1255 tackles over 12 years)
Dick Butkus 6-3 245 (22 interceptions, 27 fumble recoveries over 8 years)
Now with receivers; the game and the coaches affect many of the stats, Moss and TO have the height and more TD in terms of stats..yards per reception Lance beats them significantly..the receivers nowadays are treated with kit gloves and room to spare
But my comment has more to do, how coaches and other players perceive the player..I had been very fortunate to have a short conversation with Paul Maguire many years ago; we had been marveling at Moss speed and jumping ability (Viking days). He turned and said that is the first receiver to remind him of Lance and mesmerized with Moss I had agreed; but then he made a short statement that Moss would never be the go to Lance was that they just the same mentally.
A coach whose job on the line (probably bit too much Parcell mentality here) wants a player he knows can get it done. I have seen Moss pout and take plays off as I have with TO; both are phenomenal receivers, it is just if I am to lose my ring/my job then it won’t be on a player jogging it out.
PS if TO came across the middle with Butkus, he would prob cry some at the news conference
Butkus was aitypical for his time
Most offensive lineman were his size or even smaller, most middle linebackers in his period were in 200-215 pound range.
One can notice a serious change of focus to the passing game in 1979 when the 5 yard CB contact rule was enforced to a comparable level to today’s game. So any team beforehand seems completely unrealistic to think they could compete with modern teams.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Call or Txt: 760-515-BFTB (2382)
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
