Ranking the best football teams of all time

[Pope Flick]

Let me explain this to you and Nick, who seem to be completely clueless to my point. The 90's Cowboys were not 30 lbs smaller per man up front that todays players, like the Steelers of the 70s compared to the Cowboys of the 90s. That Dallas OL was the biggest in the NFL, around 310 avg across the board, and 3 were bigger, but the C was 285, so he brought the average down. Aikman, Irvin, and emmitt could easily play in todays NFL, if in their prime. Hell Brett Favre is still playing, and he was from the same era at QB. Even Larry Allen is still playing today for SF. Aikman was 6'4, 220. its not like he was a smurf like some Qbs of the 70's. The 76 steelers were probably 270-280 up front, and they would have been torn apart by any of todays NFL teams. So comparing eras can be done to a certain extent, but the 90s Cowboys could dominate in todays NFL, because they had the size of todays NFl players. The Steelers of the 70s or even 9ers of the 80's would have no chance to compete in todays NFL, for that very reason.

 

 

 

Let me explain this to you:

 

considering the 92 cowboys cant play the 76 Steelers, and the 66 Packers wont line up against the 88 49ers, its not an exact science.

 

 

So, who really knows?

 

There you go, so you can shut up with your homerism anytime. You exposed it yourself. Big surprise.

[Sgt. Ryan]

Let me explain this to you:

So, who really knows?

 

There you go, so you can shut up with your homerism anytime. You exposed it yourself. Big surprise.

 

 

LMAO, you think its that easy to shut me up. Think again. And I exposed what, that I am convinced the 92 cowboys were the greatest talent in NFL history.

[Sgt. Ryan]

 

So, who really knows?

 

 

 

 

oh and , I know, thats who. If you dont, maybe you should post less, and read what I say more.

[Pope Flick]

LMAO, you think its that easy to shut me up. Think again. And I exposed what, that I am convinced the 92 cowboys were the greatest talent in NFL history.

 

 

 

No, I know you don't shut up.

 

You exposed rules for other teams that don't apply to yours.

[Sgt. Ryan]

No, I know you don't shut up.

 

You exposed rules for other teams that don't apply to yours.

 

 

hmm, I think the 96 packers, 98 Bronco's would also run rough shot over any of the Pats teams. But I wasnt asked that question. So I hardly think I exposed rules for other teams that only apply to mine. But nice try.

Edited February 1, 2007 by Sgt. Ryan

[Azazello1313]

leave it to a texan to argue that their football team is the best of all time simply because it was the fattest.

[Pope Flick]

leave it to a texan to argue that their football team is the best of all time simply because it was the fattest.

 

 

 

And a team that isn't in the top ten of any rankings posted by espn thus far to boot.

 

Too bad he doens't know when to drink a tall glass of shut up juice.

[BeeR]

One of those 90's Cowboys team barely beat a Neil O'Donnell led Steelers team. IF O'Donnell didn't throw two gimme interceptions, that 90's Cowboys team would have lost to a 90's Steelers team that isn't half of what their teams of the 70's were.

 

...not to mention beating the "we don't really wanna win the big one" Bills. I admit I have anti-DAL bias but sorry, no vote here.

 

 

 

Kinda have to mention the 1972 Dolphins and their undefeated season. Sort of hard to argue against that one...

 

? On the contrary, it's very easy to argue against including them in a best-ever discussion. They get a footnote for the undefeated thing; that's it.

 

 

Assuming this team had to have won the SB, I'd go

 

PIT 74

SF 84

SF 89

 

Could easily swap in PIT 78, maybe one of the DAL teams, CHI 85 probably on the short list (but no way best ever). I can't go 91 Skins because the playoff/SB teams they played were weak.

 

 

Wish I could add the 70 Colts But not even close

[BeeR]

And a team that isn't in the top ten of any rankings posted by espn thus far to boot.

 

 

Please tell me you aren't arguing that a team should get more consideration because of what the rocket scientists at ESPN say. lol.

[Pope Flick]

Please tell me you aren't arguing that a team should get more consideration because of what the rocket scientists at ESPN say. lol.

 

 

 

Of course not, but pleaase tell me that sarge is as arbitrary as they are in placing the '92 cowboys on any list, much less two.

[schadenfreude]

Clearly the worst of the 3 title teams of the 90's, and that game marked the end of the Boys run.

Those 2 INts foiled the Steelers attempt to come back, but clearly not the reason Dallas won the game. As Dallas never trailed in this game.

 

http://superbowl.com/history/boxscores/game/sbxxx

1st quarter 10-0 Dallas

2nd quarter 13-7 Dallas

3rd quarter 20- 7 Dallas

4th quarter 27-17 Dallas

http://superbowl.com/history/recaps/game/sbxxx

Cornerback Larry Brown's two interceptions led to 14 second-half points and helped lift the Cowboys to their third Super Bowl victory in the last four seasons and their record-tying fifth title overall. Brown's interceptions foiled the comeback efforts of the Steelers, and earned him the Pete Rozelle Trophy as the game's most valuable player.

 

Dallas scored on each of its first three possessions, taking a 13-0 lead on Troy Aikman's 3-yard touchdown pass to Jay Novacek and a pair of field goals by Chris Boniol. Neil O'Donnell's 6-yard touchdown pass to Yancey Thigpen 13 seconds before halftime pulled Pittsburgh within 6 points, and the Steelers had the ball near midfield midway through the third quarter. But O'Donnell's third-down pass was intercepted by Brown at the Cowboys' 38-yard line, and his 44-yard return carried to Pittsburgh's 18.

 

After Aikman's 17-yard completion to Michael Irvin, Emmitt Smith ran one yard for the touchdown that put Dallas ahead again by 13 points. The Steelers rallied, though, behind Norm Johnson's 46-yard field goal, a successful surprise onside kick, and Byron (Bam) Morris's 1-yard touchdown run with 6:36 to play in the game.

 

And when they forced a punt and took possession at their own 32-yard line trailing only 20-17 with 4:15 remaining, it appeared they might have a chance to break the NFC's recent domination in the Super Bowl. But on second down, Brown struck again, intercepting O'Donnell's pass at the 39 and returning it 33 yards to the six.

 

Two plays later, Smith barreled over from four yards out for the clinching touchdown with 3:43 to go. Pittsburgh limited the Cowboys' powerful running game to only 56 yards and enjoyed a whopping 201-61 advantage in total yards in the second half, but could not overcome the three interceptions (another came on the game's final play) thrown by O'Donnell, the NFL's career leader for fewest interceptions per pass attempt.

 

In all, O'Donnell completed 28 of 49 passes for 239 yards. Morris rushed for a game-high 73 yards on 19 carries. For Dallas, Aikman completed 15 of 23 pass attempts for 209 yards.

 

The Cowboys' victory was the twelfth in a row for NFC teams over AFC teams in the Super Bowl.

 

 

Thanks for the write-up. One thing I will never forget about that game is the look on Aikman's face as he left the field with 4 minutes to go and Dallas up only 20-17. He looked like a beaten man, sure his team could not stop Bam Morris. But then came Larry Brown--again. The other thing I will always remember about thqat SB is that Jerry Jones likely lost a ton of money betting on the Cowboys!

[schadenfreude]

Im sorry, but you dont start 1-4 and lose to the Raiders twice, who went on to win the SB, you are not the best team ever. Maybe that D could be included in the best D conversation, but not best team. Not even close.

 

 

With all due respect, to say that a team coming off consecutive SB wins and accomplished what Pittsburgh did in 1976 does not deserve to be mentioned with the all-time best is moronic.

[Caveman_Nick]

Let me explain this to you and Nick, who seem to be completely clueless to my point. The 90's Cowboys were not 30 lbs smaller per man up front that todays players, like the Steelers of the 70s compared to the Cowboys of the 90s. That Dallas OL was the biggest in the NFL, around 310 avg across the board, and 3 were bigger, but the C was 285, so he brought the average down. Aikman, Irvin, and emmitt could easily play in todays NFL, if in their prime. Hell Brett Favre is still playing, and he was from the same era at QB. Even Larry Allen is still playing today for SF. Aikman was 6'4, 220. its not like he was a smurf like some Qbs of the 70's. The 76 steelers were probably 270-280 up front, and they would have been torn apart by any of todays NFL teams. So comparing eras can be done to a certain extent, but the 90s Cowboys could dominate in todays NFL, because they had the size of todays NFl players. The Steelers of the 70s or even 9ers of the 80's would have no chance to compete in todays NFL, for that very reason.

 

 

No I'm not, you dumbass. I was just poking a stick at you because your statement was inconsistant...

 

I think debates over which team from x decade would beat what team from another decade are flat out dumb, because there's no way to quantify it

[Caveman_Nick]

LMAO, you think its that easy to shut me up. Think again. And I exposed what, that I am convinced the 92 cowboys were the greatest talent in NFL history.

 

 

 

fixed.

[Sgt. Ryan]

With all due respect, to say that a team coming off consecutive SB wins and accomplished what Pittsburgh did in 1976 does not deserve to be mentioned with the all-time best is moronic.

 

 

You get your ass beat in the AFC Championship game, to the Raiders, who then go on to win the SB, and they beat you early in the season as well, when you started 1-4. Lets just say you were not better thant he Raiders that season, let alone the best of all time. If you cant see that, you are the idiot.

[skins]

I can't go 91 Skins because the playoff/SB teams they played were weak.

 

 

Well, yer right about the Falcons. They were 10-6 regular season but weak.

 

And while I dont consider the 91 Lions a powerhouse, they were 12-4 in the regular season who beat a very good 11-5 Dallas team in the playoffs with Troy and Irvin beginning their reign.

 

And the 13-3 Buffalo Bills had the #1 total offense that year and could play ball. Weak? Not even close.

 

The Redskins win margin that whole season was one of the highest, if not the highest, for any Superbowl winner in modern NFL season. And they had a tough schedule: splitting with the 10-6 Eagles (23-0 win, 22-24 loss) and the 11-5 Cowboys, beating the 8-8 Giants twice, 10-6 Atlanta (56-17!!), 11-5 Oilers, 11-5 Chicago, and the 12-4 Lions (45-0) in the regular season. They had a very tough schedule and ended up 14-2 and the last loss was a gimme at the end of the year to the Iggles.

 

They beat the cream of the whole NFC in the regular season, ended up 14-2 and then beat em again ain the playoffs, and the best of the AFC in the SB.

[Sgt. Ryan]

Thanks for the write-up. One thing I will never forget about that game is the look on Aikman's face as he left the field with 4 minutes to go and Dallas up only 20-17. He looked like a beaten man, sure his team could not stop Bam Morris. But then came Larry Brown--again. The other thing I will always remember about thqat SB is that Jerry Jones likely lost a ton of money betting on the Cowboys!

 

 

 

Ok, lets dissect this piece of work.

 

So the one thing you will never forget about this game, in which your Steelers lost the SB, is the look on Aikmans face with 4 minutes to go, with the lead. that is moronic.

 

Boys couldnt stop Bam, hmm. What the hell are you talking about. Bam had 73 yards rushing on 19 carries or 3.8 per attempt. And you take away the long of 15 and he averaged 3.2 yards. Id hardly call that not stopping Bam Morris. If Morris was so great, and unstoppable, then why was O'Donnell throwing on 2nd down, with just under 4 minutes to go, down by only 3. Why not just run the unstoppable Morris down the Boys throat.

 

So your 2nd most fond memory of this game, is you think Jerry Jones lost a ton of money betting on his Cowboys. I dont recall the spread being over 10 pts, which was the margin of victory in the game. And I highly doubt Jones bet on the game. Please tell me, you have some sort of proof that JJ bet on his Cowboys, for bringing this weak sh*t up here. Because to say, Jones likely lost a ton of money on the game, is probably the weakest, least credibal thing Ive ever heard on this site.

[Sgt. Ryan]

No I'm not, you dumbass. I was just poking a stick at you because your statement was inconsistant...

 

I think debates over which team from x decade would beat what team from another decade are flat out dumb, because there's no way to quantify it

 

Again, you didnt get my point. My statement was completely consistent. Dallas was not a small team, like those of the 70s or even 80's so they could be compared in size of todays players. Where teams in the 70s or even 80;s were much smaller than those in the 90's and today. Hopefully now you get it.

Edited February 1, 2007 by Sgt. Ryan

[Caveman_Nick]

Again, you didnt get my point. My statement was completely consistent. Dallas was not a small team, like those of the 70s or even 80's so they could be compared in size of todays players. Where teams in the 70s or even 80;s were much smaller than those in the 90's and today. Hopefully now you get it.

 

 

 

It's not a lie if you believe it

[Menudo]

Ok, lets dissect this piece of work.

 

So the one thing you will never forget about this game, in which your Steelers lost the SB, is the look on Aikmans face with 4 minutes to go, with the lead. that is moronic.

 

Boys couldnt stop Bam, hmm. What the hell are you talking about. Bam had 73 yards rushing on 19 carries or 3.8 per attempt. And you take away the long of 15 and he averaged 3.2 yards. Id hardly call that not stopping Bam Morris. If Morris was so great, and unstoppable, then why was O'Donnell throwing on 2nd down, with just under 4 minutes to go, down by only 3. Why not just run the unstoppable Morris down the Boys throat.

 

So your 2nd most fond memory of this game, is you think Jerry Jones lost a ton of money betting on his Cowboys. I dont recall the spread being over 10 pts, which was the margin of victory in the game. And I highly doubt Jones bet on the game. Please tell me, you have some sort of proof that JJ bet on his Cowboys, for bringing this weak sh*t up here. Because to say, Jones likely lost a ton of money on the game, is probably the weakest, least credibal thing Ive ever heard on this site.

 

 

Well, I doubt that Jones lost money, but the Steelers were 13 point underdogs, iirc. Also, the Steelers did have the momentum going. They scored on a TD run by Bam. Then they caused a 3 and out when Kirkland sacked Aikman. Things were rolling right along and then...........O'Donnell threw the pick.

 

However, the Cowboys were the better team that day and one the game. No excuses here.

[Pope Flick]

Well, I doubt that Jones lost money, but the Steelers were 13 point underdogs, iirc. Also, the Steelers did have the momentum going. They scored on a TD run by Bam. Then they caused a 3 and out when Kirkland sacked Aikman. Things were rolling right along and then...........O'Donnell threw the pick.

 

However, the Cowboys were the better team that day and one the game. No excuses here.

 

 

 

Best onsides kick ever: recovered, returned for yardage and in a Super Bowl.

[Azazello1313]

how about best defense and best offense?

 

defense: 85 bears (easy)

offense: 98 broncos

[Sgt. Ryan]

how about best defense and best offense?

 

defense: 85 bears (easy)

offense: 98 broncos

 

 

How does this offense compare to the Vikes of 98. Or the Rams of 2001. Or even the Colts of a few yrs back where Manning threw 49 TDs.

[Bill Swerski]

offense: 98 broncos

 

 

The '89 and '94 49ers were better.

[Azazello1313]

How does this offense compare to the Vikes of 98. Or the Rams of 2001. Or even the Colts of a few yrs back where Manning threw 49 TDs.

 

 

well i was trying to think of teams that actually WON something. anyway, those teams put up some points, but none of them could dominate ball control with the running game like the 98 broncos could.

 

The '89 and '94 49ers were better.

 

 

you can make an argument for those, and plenty others (like the 92 cowboys, a team that COULD dominate ball control with the running game). but line them up player by player comparing all-around strengths and the 98 broncos definitely compare pretty favorably.