All time best team by franchise

If this has been discussed before, feel free to delete this thread.

Take the best players in a franchise's history and that is the team you field, along with the best coach(es).

1) A player is claimed by the team where the player spent the most time. Favre for example, would be claimed by the Packers. Rod Woodson by the Steelers. Even though both players left via fee agency
2) Take the best players and field your 53 man roster.
3) Formulate a way to decide on rules, simply taking today's rules wouldn't work *or* would play a part in which players you'd have to choose. You have to take the player as they were, regardless of substance's they took to get there. If a player took steroids in the 70s and it was legal or they got away with it, then so be it. Or today, majority of the players take illegal performance enhancers so unless they got caught, they are available.

Which team would be the best?

Easy choice...the Steelers.

Okay.... Steelers. I honestly think Raiders #2. The last couple of decades hasn't been kind, but all in all.....................................

Between the Steelers and Raiders, no two teams are as iconic... IMO.

It would be very, very close between the all-time Steelers and all-time 49ers.

A big problem the Steelers would have is that all of the linemen (OL and DL) from the '70s teams except for Joe Greene would be severely undersized compared to players a couple decades later. So they'd either have to play out of position or be left off in favor of later players. Not that Aaron Smith, Casey Hampton, and Mean Joe wouldn't still make a really good line, but the Steel Curtain would not be the same Steel Curtain.

Similarly, it's easy to overlook that if you combined the best of the Ronnie Lott / Charles Haley era defense with the best of the more recent Patrick Willis / Navorro Bowman defense - as well as a couple of really good individual players like Bryant Young who spent a large part of their careers during the shitty years - you would probably have one of the top few defenses of all time as well. Not to mention, Charles Haley and Aldon Smith would set the record for all-time craziest pair of outside linebackers.

Even though the Steelers would have a good offense if they borrowed from the more recent teams, I don't know where it would rank all-time. Top 5? Top 10? 49ers would be #1 by a long way, though. I would probably say the 49ers win overall by the slightest of margins.

The all-time Raiders would be a contender if it was a 52-man roster, but who would play quarterback?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelreserve

It would be very, very close between the all-time Steelers and all-time 49ers.

A big problem the Steelers would have is that all of the linemen (OL and DL) from the '70s teams except for Joe Greene would be severely undersized compared to players a couple decades later. So they'd either have to play out of position or be left off in favor of later players. Not that Aaron Smith, Casey Hampton, and Mean Joe wouldn't still make a really good line, but the Steel Curtain would not be the same Steel Curtain.

Similarly, it's easy to overlook that if you combined the best of the Ronnie Lott / Charles Haley era defense with the best of the more recent Patrick Willis / Navorro Bowman defense - as well as a couple of really good individual players like Bryant Young who spent a large part of their careers during the shitty years - you would probably have one of the top few defenses of all time as well. Not to mention, Charles Haley and Aldon Smith would set the record for all-time craziest pair of outside linebackers.

Even though the Steelers would have a good offense if they borrowed from the more recent teams, I don't know where it would rank all-time. Top 5? Top 10? 49ers would be #1 by a long way, though. I would probably say the 49ers win overall by the slightest of margins.

The all-time Raiders would be a contender if it was a 52-man roster, but who would play quarterback?

---

The Niners would be in the discussion, but let’s just stick to the OLBs. Would you really take Haley & Smith over Harrison & (insert name)?

-Jack Ham
-Greg Lloyd
-Joey Porter
-Kevin Greene
-TJ Watt
-Mike Merriweather

Also, why would the Niners’ offense be the automatic #1. What Niners RBs were better than Franco, Bettis, Foster, & Bell. I’d also take the Steelers O-line: Webster, Dawson, Faneca... and so on. Are you basing this on Rice & T.O.???... who would be the top two, but after that, the Niners would struggle to match the Steelers. (Heck, I’d argue that AB would actually be ahead of T.O., but I’m not going to split hairs).

-Swann
-Stallworth
-Lipps
-Ward

I don't know if teams like the packers or the cowboys deserve to be considered?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by teegre

The Niners would be in the discussion, but let’s just stick to the OLBs. Would you really take Haley & Smith over Harrison & (insert name)?

-Jack Ham
-Greg Lloyd
-Joey Porter
-Kevin Greene
-TJ Watt
-Mike Merriweather

Also, why would the Niners’ offense be the automatic #1. What Niners RBs were better than Franco, Bettis, Foster, & Bell. I’d also take the Steelers O-line: Webster, Dawson, Faneca... and so on. Are you basing this on Rice & T.O.???... who would be the top two, but after that, the Niners would struggle to match the Steelers. (Heck, I’d argue that AB would actually be ahead of T.O., but I’m not going to split hairs).

-Swann
-Stallworth
-Lipps
-Ward

---

The thing is, the Steelers have many more dominant pass rushers ... but you can't put five or six of them on the field at once. Haley at his best was one of the most dominant pass rushers in the game, and so was just about anyone on the Steelers' list, so I'd call that side a draw against anyone. The other side, Pittsburgh would have the advantage ... if they're both playing the same defense, but then it starts getting murky. The 49ers played a 4-3 for almost all of the past four decades, so they had fewer dominant OLBs (and their defense didn't depend on them as much). What they did have were just a ton of DEs and DTs who would probably compare similarly to, say, Cam Heyward. Just a constant stream of them, there were probably 10 or 15 guys like that overall. How do you compare those two things? I have no idea.

On offense, the Steelers probably have the "better" group of RBs - I'd say Roger Craig, Frank Gore and Garrison Hearst would probably be the 49ers' top three guys in that order. But much like OLB, who gets the ball? Craig is the same as Bell - I mean they are almost the exact same player. Gore would be a slightly worse #2 and Hearst a worse #3, but how central are we assuming the #3 guy is to the offense on each side?

One of the two big differences is Rice and T.O. I mean, they're the #1 and #3 guys on the all-time list, which no one else is even close to. Rice wins the WR1 battle and T.O. wins the WR2 battle. For the #3 guy, Dwight Clark would probably not be a bad slot receiver by today's standards, but I would actually go with John Taylor as the third-best. He had a short career, so he won't show up on any all-time leaders lists, but was super clutch and would absolutely kill you if you were paying all your attention to Rice. And was also one of the best returners in the game.

But the big one is QB, where I don't think anyone touches Montana and Young. True, Bradshaw was a "winner" like Montana, while Young and Ben were probably the better overall passers. But Montana is the #1 QB of all time in my book, the most clutch player in the history of the game.

I remember at the end of Super Bowl 45 against the Packers, we had the ball on our own 10-yard line with one last chance to win it, and I said out loud, "Holy shit, this is the EXACT same situation as Joe Montana 25 years ago, here's your chance to be one of the all-time legends." But, we know how that unfortunately turned out.

There are other things, like how much better the Steelers OL would be (I'd argue the Steelers would be a little better, but they were both championship quality), or the 49ers probably having a decent edge at TE. But those are the big ones.

It's also difficult to know how to account for the fact that the 49ers routinely had some big-name players who came in for two or three seasons. (Did you remember Chris Doleman played for them for 3 seasons and had almost 40 sacks? Jim Burt and Richard Dent played DL for them? Tim Harris came over from Green Bay and had a 17-sack season?) All sorts of things like that. I guess according to these standards, you'd ignore them because they didn't spend the majority of their careers there, but that was still important.

@steelreserve

We sort of have to leave “free agents” off of the list (unless they were on a team for a number of years/became associated as being a part of that team). Steve Young and Jerome Bettis started their careers on different teams, but everyone & their mother sees them as a Niner & a Steeler respectively. Conversely, Deion Sanders and Rod Woodson are not Niners.

Speaking of which, the Steelers have the better starters (Blount & Woodson) and third CB (Taylor), but after that :scared: The starters are obviously going to be the Steelers, but for a 53-man roster, the advantage might go to the Niners for depth.

At safety, the Niners have Ronnie Lott, but close behind is Polamalu. 1 and 1a. After that, it’s Hanks vs. Lake. McDonald vs. Clark. After that, well, I’m not sure about the Niners players, but the Steelers have Shell. I’d give the slight edge to the Steelers.

As you stated, it becomes difficult to compare, because the Niners mostly ran a 4-3. They had their share of good D-linemen, but it’s difficult to compare them the Steelers. For example, who was better: Stubblefield or Hampton? Which “Smith” was better: Justin or Aaron? Could the two DT teammates from North Texas State (Hardman and Greene) even play in today’s NFL?

One final thing: Andy Lee is obviously the best punter (between these two franchises), and Gary Anderson is the best kicker. Now... what I reeeeally want to know is: who had the best long-snapper?

Obviously, the best long snapper is James Harrison, no one can match his distance.

It is really hard to compare the two defenses - I think it'd be hard to argue against the Steelers having the better defense, but how much better? That's the real question. And the reverse on offense. And how much should the reserves count for that?

The 4-3 vs/ 3-4 scheme makes it difficult not only because of the line, but because the linebackers play different roles too. How does a guy like Keena Turner, Riki Ellison, or Lee Woodall fit into a 3-4 like we know? Probably not that well, and they wouldn't be "big play" guys. Is that more effective depth or rotational players than 6 pass rushers? Who knows. Maybe in a 3-4 the pass rushers really are better depth, and in a 4-3 the solid well-rounded guys are better.

Does having 10 similar guys like Fred Dean, Dwaine Board, Pierce Holt, Kevin Fagan, Bryant Young, Dana Stubblefield, Michael Carter, Larry Roberts, etc., actually do you any good past a point? Is Barry Foster even going to get on the field, and if so, is he going to make a noticeable improvement over Bettis or whoever is in front of him?

All of those kinds of things that make these debates impossible to settle. Both teams got the kinds of players they did for a reason, and it's hard to argue with the results.