There is no greatest team ever
Posted by Chase Stuart on Thursday, February 7, 2008
Back in May '06, I told Doug about this wacky theory I've got, and he responded by saying it would be a good post on his newly formed blog. I kept putting it on my to-do list because the idea was never timely enough to motivate me to spell it all out. Until now.
As most of our readers know, I'm a Patriots hater. However, after watching the 2007 New England Patriots play five games, I was already proclaiming them arguably the best team in NFL history.
Does that prediction, in retrospect, look smart or stupid? I'm not sure. But Patriots hate aside, I'm thrilled that no one will call this Patriots the best team in history. And do you know why? Because David Tyree made one of the greatest catches you'll ever see, after Eli Manning made one of the sweetest escapes you'll ever see. And because Brandon Jacobs converted a 4th and 1 by a foot. And because Brady's bomb to Moss in the final 30 seconds bounced off his fingertips, and didn't fall into his hands. And because the Patriots didn't run the ball on 1st down at the goal line with under three minutes to go. And because Steve Smith got a great pick from his teammate, and converted a crucial third and 11 in the final minute. And because Plaxico Burress made one great move on Ellis Hobbs. And, finally, because Asante Samuel jumped an inch too low to intercept a Manning pass on the game winning drive.
The point?
About fifteen plays could have gone the other way, and the Patriots would have won that game. And had New England won, everyone would proclaim them the greatest team of all time. And that would have bothered the heck out of me, not because I hate New England, but because the team that took the field on Super Bowl Sunday was far from the greatest team of all time.
Had New England won, my post would have sounded like sour grapes. 19-0. Biggest margin of victory of all time. Highest scoring team of all time. Highest SRS rating of all time. The Pats played a much harder schedule than the '72 Dolphins. What more can you ask for in the greatest team of all time than to win every game, and to win by more than every other team has ever won by, against a far from easy schedule?
Here's the problem. There were two New England Patriots teams this year. New England outscored its opponents 411-157 in their first ten games of the season. The Patriots had a 25.4 margin of victory through the first ten games. How insane is that? Those 411 points were the most ever through ten games. Only the '42 Bears (+278) had a better points differential after ten games. In the modern era, the '62 Packers at +235 were the previous record-holder; since the merger, the '84 Dolphins were the leader in MOV through ten games, at 195 points. I suspect that New England's +254 through ten games won't be soon challenged in today's NFL, and is an incredible accomplishment.
Take a look at the quarterback. Brady was 250/338 (74%) for 3,059 yards (9.1 Y/A) with 38 touchdowns, 4 interceptions, and two more rushing scores. 40 TDs against 4 INTs! Incredible.
But then there were the Pats of the last nine games. Let's assume that Samuel makes that interception, and New England wins 14-10 in the Super Bowl. The Pats would have outscored opponents 244-159, for an average margin of victory of 9.4 points per game. That's 16.0 fewer points per game than their average margin of victory through ten games. The difference between the Patriots of the first ten games and the Patriots of the last nine games would be LARGER than the difference between the Patriots of the last nine games and the 2007 New York Jets.
Brady? After having a QB rating of 133.1 after ten games, he completed 225 of 349 passes (64%) for 2,484 yards (7.1 Y/A) with 18 TDs and 7 interceptions, and no rushing scores. That's a QB rating of "just" 94.3. The difference between Brady of the first ten games and Brady of the last nine games was 38.8; take 38.8 off of Brady's rating in the last nine games and you land somewhere in between Rick Mirer and Ryan Leaf on the career rankings list.
My point? Which team was the 2007 Patriots? I don't think either team was. I don't think the 2007 Patriots really existed. Not to get too philosophical in a football blog post, but the 2007 Patriots aren't really a team; they're a collection of 19 teams. Each game the Patriots played featured a different Patriots squad. Was Richard Seymour on the 2008 Patriots? Well if you ask the Cincinnati Bengals they might say no, since he was out for that game. Was Rosevelt Colvin on the team? He played in the first eleven games, but not the last eight. The Patriots team that played the Redskins was not the same team that struggled with the Jets late in the season. Even a casual observer could tell that.
I've seen it written that this Giants team beat maybe the greatest team of all time. Hogwash! They didn't beat the Patriots of weeks 1-11; they beat a Patriots team that struggled to win at home against a 11-5 team playing without the best running back in the league, the best tight end in the league, and with a QB on one leg. The Chargers allowed 18 PPG this year; in New England -- the greatest offense ever -- San Diego allowed 21 points. Does that sound like the greatest team in league history to you? Because it doesn't to me. When that Chargers team was fully healthy, San Diego got destroyed by the Patriots in week two. Why? Because the week two New England team may very well have been the greatest team of all time. The playoffs version wasn't very close to the greatest team of all time. The week before the Pats made David Garrard look like Steve Young, and the wildcard Jags stood toe-to-toe with the Pats in that game. A win is a win, of course, but when we're discussing the greatest team of all time, wouldn't you expect something a bit more dominant?
It sounds impressive to write that the Giants knocked off an 18-0 team, a previously unbeaten team, arguably the greatest team of all time. It sounds less impressive, but no less accurate, to write that the Giants beat a team that limped into the Super Bowl, one that was a shell of its former self. They beat a team that made the Super Bowl following a pair of home wins by a combined 20 points, against one-dimensional teams.
And had New England won against the Giants, what would that have told us? That they beat New York barely, instead of losing to New York barely, like the Packers and Cowboys did. Are the 2007 Packers or 2007 Cowboys going to be on anyone's top 50 list of the greatest football teams of all time? Of course not. The Giants may have stopped New England from earning the label "best team ever", but the Giants did *not* beat the best team ever. They beat a very good team, and that's that.
So who is the greatest team of all time? I don't think it really exists. Want to say the '85 Bears? Who was the QB of that team? Before you say Jim McMahon, you should know that he only started eleven games for them. Like the '72 Dolphins? Well who was the QB of that team? Because the guy who quarterbacked the team in the Super Bowl wasn't the guy who won AFC player of the year.
Am I splitting hairs here? Is this pointless? Probably. But part of the problem is "greatest team of all time discussions" is a lack of criteria. What are we supposed to base our decision on? Presumably, the focus is more predictive than retrodictive, since every team won the Super Bowl. The question, I think, is which SB champion would have the highest winning percentage if all 42 SB Champs played each other. Or at least, that's what I think it is. Maybe others view the question differently.
How much should backup QBs factor in? For example, the '89 49ers got three games out of Steve Young, and he played incredibly well. Do the 49ers get bonus points for having a great backup QB when compared to the '04 Patriots, who didn't need a backup, but didn't have a good one (Rohan Davey)? Should injuries not matter at all if they didn't actually happen? I can see arguments on both sides.
Is Bob Sanders on the '05 Colts? He only played four regular season games that year. If you want to say yes, what about Phil Simms and the '90 Giants? Does he "count"? How much? Should "flukiness" matter? Do the '91 Redskins get downgraded because Mark Rypien was the QB? Would they be upgraded if Marino was the QB even if he put up exactly the same stats? How much, then, should the results matter of the team/player in the years before and after?
It's easy to say that the 2007 Patriots were better than the 2002 Patriots. But when you get to close calls -- the '85 Bears against the '72 Dolphins -- what do we have to go on to decide? How much should regular season success count? How much should playoff success matter? Who the heck QBs the '72 Dolphins, anyway? How do we rate inconsistency. Let's say a hypothetical team could have a rating of 100 in 70% of their games, but a rating of 80 in the other 30% of the games. Assume that no other team has ever achieved a rating of 100 in any game ever, but several teams have had a rating of 95 for 100% of the games. Are those teams better than our inconsistent team?
Can we say that the '78 Steelers were the best team of all time when they lost to the Los Angeles Rams? Was that Rams team better that game...or just lucky? When we say "the '78 Steelers", do we mean the team that lost to the Rams or the one that won the AFC Championship game 34-5? Are they the same team?
Without a formula, or a guideline, or some criteria, I don't know how we can have a greatest team ever. I think the 2007 Patriots I saw, from weeks 1-11, were one of the greatest teams I ever saw. I also think the 2004 Steelers, when they beat the eventual Super Bowl competitors in consecutive weeks by 38 points, were one of the greatest teams I ever saw. How exactly would I compare those teams? Is a two game sample too short? A ten game sample? There aren't any rules on this, as far as I know. If every game, every team, truly is different, then maybe December 8th, 1940 saw the greatest team in football history play, when the Bears beat the Redskins 73-0.
In the end, the whole conversation of ranking teams frustrates me in a way similar to the BCS does. It's even worse than Hall of Fame discussions, which can be infuriating, too. Maybe we should just establish a new rule that we can't have any debate until we clearly set out what we're trying to decipher? Or maybe I should just stop posting my insane ideas.
This entry was posted on Thursday, February 7th, 2008 at 7:16 AM and filed under General, History, Insane ideas. Follow comments here with the RSS 2.0 feed. Skip to the end and leave a response. Trackbacks are closed.
Fun post, Chase.
I agree that the '07 Patriots were the playoff '85 Bears for the first half of the year and the average of the '72 Dolphins (or alternatively, a luckier and/or more clutch version of the '07 Packers) for the second part. And I definitely agree that the Giants are getting too much credit for beating the best team of all time, for all the reasons you stated.
Don't forget, though, that splits happen. Just because a team looks different at different times doesn't necessarily mean it really is different (except in some literal sense).
Posted on 07-Feb-08 at 7:32 am | PermalinkDon't toss the baby out with the bathwater.
You make excellent points about the nature of teams, particularly the 2007 Patriots, changing over the course of the season. But you seem to be saying that since it's impossible to put together a PERFECT rating system that takes into account ALL of these factors, then it's useless to put together any system at all.
Even if every player played every game for every given team, and a team was perfectly consistent over the course of a season, then what? Would you then have a perfectly accurate way to compare the 1963 Packers with the 1972 Dolphins with the 1978 Steelers with the 1985 Bears with the 1989 49ers with the 1996 Packers with the 2007 Patriots...?
There is no way to establish a perfect ranking system for champions, due to all the factors you so eloquently present. But it can still be a useful exercise to use an imperfect system to show, for instance, that the 1985 Bears were better (no matter who was the QB) than the 2001 Patriots.
Posted on 07-Feb-08 at 11:11 am | PermalinkI wouldn't say the Patriots were 19 different teams. They were one team of just over 50 players. In some games, certain of those players didn't play. In others, certain of those players didn't get utilized. It was still one team, and over the course of 19 games, those 50+ players made varying levels of contributions.
Depth matters: when we talk about "the greatest team ever," we're not talking about the greatest starting 22 ever; we're talking about the entire team.
I've already thought about Brady's first 10 versus his last nine for the fantasy football principle, "BEWARE THE CAREER YEAR." Next year it's much more likely that Brady's numbers match his 2002-2006 numbers, or at best match his numbers in the last nine games this season.
Posted on 07-Feb-08 at 11:27 am | PermalinkWell if Brady has a 94.3 rating and 32 TDs next year, it'd still be better than any other season in his career 2000-06. Amazing what Moss and 5 seconds of pass protection can do for you. And when Moss disappears and the o-line can't block anyone, you get Sunday's result. That was so satisfying that they were let down by what was their biggest strength all year.
But this post is a bit philosophical when you think about it. Football is a tough game that often comes down to a difference in inches and seconds. Being the best would mean you'd have to almost leave no doubt all year, and I don't think any team has accomplished that.
I'd do it myself but I've been so swamped with school this semester, but I'd be very curious to see some analysis on quantifying perfection in the modern era (1978-07). I'd like to see the (presumably) short list of all teams that had at least a 4th quarter tie (or maybe even within one score of the opponent, especially if they tried for a tying or winning FG and just missed) in all 16 regular season games. From that we can infer how close teams have come to 16-0 (then look at their postseason). I'm sure there are more teams than just the Patriots that have come really close.
Not many NFL fans would know, but I know the 2000 Titans are a team that actually came close. 13-3, but lost all 3 games by 1-2 pts. The first game was against Buffalo and they were tied 13-13 before a 33 yd GW FG in the last 30 seconds by Buffalo. The 2nd loss was a 24-23 game to the Ravens, a game in which Del Greco missed an XP and a GW 43 yd FG at the end. The 3rd game was 16-13 to the Jaguars, the Jags hit a GW FG at the buzzer. Del Greco missed a 28 yd FG for the Titans in that game (I think it was late too). In the playoffs they were one and done to Baltimore, 24-10, but that score is deceiving. It was tied at 10 in the 4th, but the Ravens won the game on a blocked FG returned for a TD and an INT TD that went right off of Eddie George's hands into the hands of Ray Lewis. Baltimore had only 6 first downs and 134 yards of offense. A fluke game that basically secured the championship, because Tennessee was the toughest challenge. Look how close to perfection that team was, yet no one would even think of putting them on a top 50 list. Probably not even top 100.
The 2006 Chargers were another team. 14-2, they led Baltimore on the road and were tied in the 4th quarter with KC in both losses and they choked in the playoff game to the Patriots. Given their success against the Colts and the thought of Grossman in the rain again, it's not a stretch at all to say that San Diego team was so close to being perfect.
The reason the Patriots finished the regular season part of it (but not the final portion of course) and these teams didn't is because they somehow found a way in the tight ones. Of course Rex Ryan calling a timeout immediately stops them from being 15-1. And they were very fortunate they were still playing A.J. Feeley in the Eagles game, because his mistakes were clearly the difference in the game. A pick 6 early then an awful INT late when he had a guy wide open coming across the middle that would have been good for a first down. A few more plays to get it into the endzone would have taken the lead and time off the clock late in that one. And of course Indy blew a 10 pt lead in a game they really hurt themselves in early. A missed FG by Vinatieri and Anthony Gonzalez drops a TD in the endzone so they had to settle for the FG. That's a 7 point difference in a game decided by 4.
So on my short list (from only what I know without looking new things up) of seriously chasing perfection in the 16 game era, I have the 2007 Patriots, 2006 Chargers, 2001 Rams, 2000 Titans, 1998 Vikings, and 1984 49ers. I'd like to see the rest.
(Note: I guess the Giants are a good perfection killer. They've taken out the 98 Broncos and 07 Patriots. Strahan and Toomer there for both)
Posted on 07-Feb-08 at 1:00 pm | Permalink1. Good thoughts. But by the same token, the Giants could not be the worst SB champion anymore than there could be the best team ever. The Giants appeared to have distinct trend periods during the season too, particularly their playoff run.
2. But note that I said "appeared." I think part of the issue may be the "clustering illusion," the natural fallacy in which humans tend to see patterns when perhaps none exist.
Consider the possibility that the Patriots really did not have 2 seasons. Every team has a set of games in which they over-perform their average and under-perform their average. Put simply, team performance naturally varies about their mean, but nothing says that all the over-performing games can't come all in a row just by randomness.
Once in a while a team could have all of its best games in the first half of the season, then have all of its worst games in the second half. And once out of every so many years, we could see an 8-8 team win its first 8 games, then apparently "collapse" by losing the other 8. It would be considered the collapse of the century, but it could just be an illusion. They could have been a truly average team all year that happened to just string their wins and losses in streaks.
It would be rare, but every particular combination of wins and losses for an 8-8 team (WLWLWL...) is equally rare as the others. There are 2^8 possible combinations for an 8-8 team, and they all have a 1 in 256 chance of occurring.
I realize football wins and losses are not random coin flips, but WHEN the wins and losses come is random, assuming independence.
It's kind of like picking consecutive lottery numbers such as 1, 2, 3,... Most people would say, "You're crazy to do that--what are the chances? They're astronomical!" But every other combination is equally crazy. We should be just as shocked that an 8-8 team's record was something as random as WLWWLLWLLWWLWLLW as WWWWWWWWLLLLLLLL.
Posted on 07-Feb-08 at 1:04 pm | PermalinkExpanding the comparison even further, there's no way to really tell who's the best quarterback of all time. Or the best pitcher. Or the best goalie. And even if you could, through some wacky time machine, pit the 72 Dolphins against the 07 Patriots or have Babe Ruth stand in against Roger Clemens, and even assuming you could compensate for different eras, technology, and tactics, the human element and pure random luck come into play. That's why terms like "best" mean "opinion" and not "fact." It's a fact that Barry Bonds has hit more home runs than any other player in MLB history. It's an opinion that he's a better hitter than Babe Ruth.
That said, the reason you see Top 10 (or 20 or 50 or 100) lists all the time is because people like them and they sell magazines, draw viewers, or get clicks on a web site. And I'd still rather see those kind of lists than suffer through another summer of "Who's Now?"
Posted on 07-Feb-08 at 1:44 pm | PermalinkOh damn, how could I forget the 1983 Redskins? If not for two close losses, we'd be comparing them to the 07 Pats all week. And I think because of them getting routed in the SB, we'd still be saying the 83 Skins were the biggest chokers ever.
Get this: the 83 Redskins went 14-2 and boasted a NFL record 541 points in the regular season. Their only losses were by 1 pt each on MNF games. They lost to rival Dallas 31-30 after blowing a 23-3 halftime lead and a 23-17 4th quarter lead. They lost to the Packers 48-47 on MNF in a game where their kicker (1982 NFL MVP Mark Moselee) missed a 39 yd FG with 3 seconds left. That is extremely close to going 16-0. They routed the Rams in the divisional round, escaped a great Montana comeback in the NFC-C and then just flat out blew up, 38-9, in the SB against a Raider team they beat 37-35 early in the regular season.
Hmm, quickly noticing a trend here. Some of the biggest chokes in NFL history have been by the highest scoring teams. The 83 Redskins, the 98 Vikings and the 07 Patriots all should be grouped together in the same category. Over 540 pts each and not a single title. The 2000 Rams scored 540 pts, went 10-6, and lost in the wild card round. The 4 teams with the most points in a season failed to win one Super Bowl. Though the Redskins, Patriots and Rams came through with at least one title from that core group of players. The Vikings are still without one.
- The Patriots loss Sunday also marked the 4th season in a row the team with the most points and league MVP did not win the SB (Manning/Indy 04, Alexander/Seattle 05, LT/San Diego 06, Brady/New England 07).
- The last 8 teams to lead the league in points scored have failed to win one Super Bowl
- Teams that score 500+ pts historically are 3 for 10 at winning the SB and the 7 that reached the big game, went 3-4 in the SB.
- The NFL team with the best record in the regular season (using seeding as a tie-breaker) has won only 1 of the last 11 Super Bowls (2003 Patriots). The 01 Rams and 07 Patriots are the only other teams to reach the SB.
- From 1975-1996, 14 of the 22 teams with the best record won the SB that season.
- Patriots loss also continues the trouble with AFC #1 seeds. Since 1992, #1 seeds in the AFC have won only 2 out of 16 SB's (98 Broncos, 03 Patriots). Only 2 other teams made it to the SB (07 Patriots, 93 Bills)
Posted on 07-Feb-08 at 2:19 pm | PermalinkScott, should I comfort myself that in the Viking's choke game, they still scored 27 points, while Washington and New England scored 9 and 14? No, I don't think I will.
Posted on 07-Feb-08 at 7:14 pm | PermalinkI'm still mad Gary Anderson choked and cost NFL fans a chance at seeing what might have been an incredible game between Minnesota and Denver.
Oh well, at least Denny Green wasn't all outcoached like Belichick was.
Posted on 07-Feb-08 at 9:56 pm | PermalinkYour post makes complete sense, but that'll never stop speculation. Speculation is FUN! Comparing the 85 bears to the 07 pats is fascinating. So is comparing MJ to Wilt, or Brett Favre to Dan Marino.
It's interesting how we view things... Jerry Rice has an amazing number of yards due to a long and extremely productive career. If Torry Holt disappeared from the NFL, he'd have more yards than Jerry did in the same amount of time. But really, who would say he was better? If Barry Sanders hadn't retired, and instead, he'd played through several crap seasons, would we no longer consider him one of the best of all time? Why has Gale Sayers taken on mythic qualities but Terrell Davis has not? He averaged more YPG than LT!
Sure, it's all subjective, but still fun to argue about.
Posted on 08-Feb-08 at 1:31 am | PermalinkThe Ship of Theseus
Posted on 10-Feb-08 at 12:23 am | Permalink"Jerry Rice has an amazing number of yards due to a long and extremely productive career. If Torry Holt disappeared from the NFL, he’d have more yards than Jerry did in the same amount of time. But really, who would say he was better?"
Except that Jerry Rice set the single-season receiving yards record later in his career than Holt is now. So, yes, if Torry Holt sets the NFL single season receiving record next year, then maybe some people would say he was better than Jerry Rice.
"If Barry Sanders hadn’t retired, and instead, he’d played through several crap seasons, would we no longer consider him one of the best of all time?"
You mean, if he'd done basically the same thing as Emmitt Smith?
"Not to get too philosophical in a football blog post, but the 2007 Patriots aren’t really a team; they’re a collection of 19 teams. Each game the Patriots played featured a different Patriots squad."
I see, so I'm not really a person, I'm a collection of 8000+ people, one for each day of my life. Sounds very plausible to me. Of course, it might not sound very plausible tomorrow, but that's just because I'll be a different person then.
Sorry, but I'm just not seeing it. People have good days and bad days, just like teams, and we don't say that they don't really exist. I mean, if John donates a kidney to Jane, is the kidney part of John's body, or does it become part of Jane's? It's an interesting question, but I don't see how it implies that John is not one person.
"Like the ‘72 Dolphins? Well who was the QB of that team? Because the guy who quarterbacked the team in the Super Bowl wasn’t the guy who won AFC player of the year."
I'd say that a team winning the Super Bowl with their backup QB (after going undefeated in the regular season) is an argument in favor of a team being the best of all time, not against.
"The question, I think, is which SB champion would have the highest winning percentage if all 42 SB Champs played each other."
Remember, the highest winning percentage, if all 42 SB Champs played each other many, many times. This way, we can solve the problem of backups, among other things. For instance, if Jim McMahon only started 11 games for the '85 Bears (14 if you count the playoffs, assuming he started the playoff games), then the '85 Bears would only get to start Jim McMahon in 11 of every 16 games against each other SB contender (or 14 of every 19 games). I personally would count postseason games just as much as regular season games. Also, stipulate that each player would play as well in the hypothetical games as he did in the actual games he played in, with the same distribution of great/good/bad/terrible games, etc. Do that with every player, on all 42 teams, and have the teams play enough games to get all the possible combinations in the right proportions, and then find the one with the best winning percentage. That's the greatest team ever*.
*No matter what method you use, or what the answer turns out to be, we can at least be happy that it can't possibly be "the 2007 Patriots". And really, that's enough for me.
Posted on 12-Feb-08 at 1:56 pm | PermalinkI would never have proclaimed the Patriots the greatest team of all time, even if they managed to defeat the New York Giants. Greatest Team of All Time? Do you mean the greatest single season, greatest team or greatest franchise? Assuming we are talking Super Bowl era teams, the great Packers teams of the '60s are ruled out because the '66 and '67 Packers were lacking the punch of Hornung and Taylor (it was near the end of their illustrious careers and they were only a shadow of their former selves) and of course the absence of Jim Ringo, HOF center. HOF greats Willie Davis, Henry Jordan, Ray Nitschke were still playing incredible ball at 34, 32 and 31 respectively. Remember they also had Herb Adderley, Willie Wood and Dave Robinson. Despite this amazing defense, their offensive firepower was not up to the standard set by the Dolphins, Cowboys, Steelers of the '70s or the 49ers of the '80s. Also let's not forget the Cowboys of the '90s.
Everyone loves to talk about the 1972 Dolphins and their perfect season. When you analyze the level of play and difficulty of schedule it is in fact the Dolphins of 1973 which was the most dominant of all the great Dolphins teams (1970-75). Remember the 1972 Dolphins were not even favored to win in that Super Bowl, they were one point underdogs to the Redskins. If you look at the Dolphin's rosters during these seasons you will notice very little variation in the starting lineups, which qualifies the Dolphins of these years as a single team.
Let's analyze their famous run:
1970 10-4 1st round playoff loss
1971 10-3-1 Super Bowl loss to Cowboys
1972 14-0 Super Bowl win
1973 12-2 Super Bowl win
1974 11-3 1st Round Playoff loss (Jake Scott missed playoff game due to injury, Csonka was playing hurt most of the season)
1975 10-4 Missed playoffs due to losing tiebreaker for qualifying with the Baltimore Colts (Nick Nuoniconti and Dick Anderson out all season).
These years for the Dolphins were a very impressive run.
Now look at the Steelers roster in the 1974 Super Bowl versus their last win in 1979. Offensively the only different player was TE, Bennie Cunningham, 10 out of 11, basically the same core team. Defensively Dwight White lost his starting position to Banaszak (he joined the Steelers in 1975) Gary Dunn was a new player at DE, Dennis Winston and Robin Cole were new linebackers, Ron Johnson was new at CB, Donnie Shell was promoted to starter over Glen Edwards (who was traded to San Diego). Out of the 22 starters, 18 were with the original team in 1974. This makes it basically the same team and the same core group of players.
Let's analyze the Steelers famous run:
1972 11-3 Lost Championship game to Miami 21-17
1973 10-4 Lost in first round of playoffs
1974 10-3-1 Super Bowl win
1975 12-2 Super Bowl win
1976 10-4 Lost championship game to Oakland (Franco Harris and Rocky Bleier did not play, got injured in 1st round of playoffs).
1977 9-5 1st round playoff loss
1978 14-2 Super Bowl win
1979 12-4 Super Bowl win
This run to me and to most unbiased, knowledgeable fans who watched these teams play during '70s is more impressive than the Dolphins run.
Quick look at the 49ers of 1981 and comparing them to the 49ers of 1989...only two players in common of the starting 22!!! Joe Montana and Ronnie Lott. The '81 and '84 Super Bowl winning 49ers while the same franchise are radically different teams than '88 and '89.
If you were to analyze the the Cowboys from 1992-1995, you will see that thas was quite an impressive run. The Raiders and Cowboys of the '70s were also amazing teams.
Let's look at the Patriots now. Let's start with 2001 (11-5 season). The Pats controversial win over the Raiders, (which if you are unbiased or honest) a bad call allowed the Patriots to continue. Then the Patriots pulled a miracle win over the Steelers, followed by an even bigger miracle defeating the Rams who were 15 point favorites. However, the win over the Raiders which should have been a loss, but they still amazed everyone in beating both the Steelers and Rams. 2002, they were 9-7, no playoffs. 2003 and 2004 were quite impressive both years 14-2 and both years Super Bowl wins. However, they barely beat Carolina, not exactly powerhouse competition when comparing the teams the Steelers and the Dolphins of the '70s had to play. Despite the close score this was an abyssmal Super Bowl. A quarter and a half of no offense (was the defense playing that well?), followed by 2 and one half quarters of no defense. The 2004 SuperBowl again they manage to win against a very good Eagle team, however Donovan McNabb was extremely ill with a bad case of influenza and was throwing up in the huddle. New England managed to win again by a FG.
Now to the 2007 Patriots we all know that this is quite different from the 2001, even the 2003 team, we'll get back to this later...first 11 weeks they were offensively amazing. Brady and Moss played perfectly, the pass protection was outstanding, Welker and Stallworth played incredible ball. The defense was slightly above average, but that's all they had to be, they were always ahead by a lot which made their job easier.
In the playoffs the defense seemed to step up their game. They were solid during the season but nothing to brag about. Remember the Patriots did have two miracle wins one against the Colts and of course we all saw them lose to the Ravens. Those poor guys had to lose a game after they stopped New England on downs and won. Remember a knucklehead Raven's coach on the sidelines called a time out. Ironically they stopped the Pats a second time but a penalty against New England nullified the play. Brady got the first down on his third attempt and kept the drive going. The Eagles and the Giants were also tough wins, these games could have gone either way. However, they did go undefeated and they did set all kinds of offensive records.
This team so much reminds me of the amazing run the Redskins had in 1983, scoring all those points only to lose to the Raiders in the Super Bowl. This loss wasn't as demoralizing because they weren't coming off a perfect season (Reskins were 14-2).
Best Team of All Time (Super Bowl Era)-Hands down it was the 1972-79 Pittsburgh Steelers.
Best Single Season of All Time (Super Bowl Era)
-Let the arguments begin! Best candidates are probably the 1985 Chicago Bears, 1975 & 78 Steelers, 1972 & 73 Dolphins, 1984 & 89 49ers and sure you could throw the 2007 Pats into the mix despite their Super Bowl loss.
Interesting note about the 1975 Steelers, two other teams in the AFC Central were tearing up the NFL: 1975 Bengals were 11-3 and 1975 Oilers were 10-4. Both had to play the Steelers twice and both lost twice to the Pittsburgh Juggernaut. If we forget about our fascination with perfect or almost-perfect seasons and don't do the knee-jerk reaction of picking the 1972 Dolphins and 2007 Patriots and go by who was REALLY the best, here's the list I come up with.
(1) 1975 Steelers and 1989 49ers (tie)
Posted on 23-Feb-08 at 1:09 pm | Permalink(2) 1978 Steelers and 1985 Bears (tie)
(3) 1973 Dolphins
(4) 1972 Dolphins
(5) 1992 Cowboys and 1984 49ers (tie)
(6) 2007 Patriots
A) Winning the super bowl is paramount
Posted on 25-Feb-08 at 3:03 pm | PermalinkA) Winning the super bowl is paramount B) Teams can only play the teams on their schedule C) Since only two teams have been perfect in the super bowl era, we must consider perfection an anamoly D) rule changes have made statistical comparisons useless E) We must pick our own parameters for "greatest", I have decided on the following 1) which team played the most difficult schedule, please consider, unless we saw the games we are only using statistics (w/l td's etc.) to judge, in hindsight, difficulty of schedule 2) which team had the least difficulty winning over the course of that season, including the post season. What we clearly can not do is ask which team would win if they faced each other on a neutral field, one look at the size of the 1972 Dolphins defense will tell you that. My list 1) 86 Bears reason-look at the scores in the playoffs- two shutouts and ten points in the SB 2) 1972 Dolphins, had Garo Yepremian not become a passer they would have recorded the only SB shutout as well as a perfect season.
Posted on 25-Feb-08 at 3:16 pm | PermalinkJust to add to the general discussion, the best team of our lifetimes is (was) the 1976 to 1979 Montreal Canadiens. Oops they play Hockey
Posted on 25-Feb-08 at 3:17 pm | PermalinkBill K - they play hockey and I hate them because I'm a Bruins fan (and yes I hate Jeremy Jacobs, too). I also hate the Portland Pirates in the AHL right now because they knocked the P-Bruins out of the Calder Cup playoffs twice in the last three seasons. GRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!
Back to the subject at hand, I agree that there isn't necessarily one Greatest Team Ever. As a Patriots fan, there are elements of some squads I wish were part of other squads - the 1994 team that went 10-6 and saw Bledsoe throw for over 4,000 yards, I certainly would have preferred they'd have also won those first two games (losses to Miami 39-35 and Buffalo 38-35) of that season; I'd have preferred the running game of 1976 or '78 have been part of some of the Patriots Superbowl squads; heck, I STILL want those two playoff games against Denver and the 2006 AFC game in Indianapolis back. But that's just idle thinking. The Pats have had excellent teams for many years but to say one is the Greatest Ever, I don't think can be done.
Posted on 28-Aug-08 at 4:21 pm | Permalink1989 Niners and 1975 Steelers - the man is right - Americas Game pissed me off. The 1985 Bears were a bit of a fluke, a new defense that a lot of teams did not understand. The smart veteran teams would have dismantled them, there were not many good sophisticated offenses in the nfl that year - the niners had a ton of injuries, the dolphins destroyed them and they played 3 horrible offenses in the playoffs. 70s Steelers, 80s Niners, 90s Niners, 90s Cowboys, 2000s Patriots would have beaten them in 20-10 fashion or worse. Look what the Niners did to the Bears the rest of the decade not to mention the Dolphins. That Bears team was fun to watch though at times!
Posted on 16-Apr-09 at 10:24 pm | PermalinkThe greatest team of all time is an easy one. The 49ers down the stretch in 1989 win hands down. They destroyed every team they played including the Elway led Broncos by the score of 55 to 10 in the Super Bowl. Even John Madden admitted this. Remember they had a skinny Quarterback named Montana and some guy named Rice.
Posted on 14-Oct-09 at 3:34 pm | Permalink