Originally Posted by teegre
The patriots were 60 games under .500 before the 2001 season.They were far from being good at this time, even with 2 participations in the super bowl.
And in my opinion, the San Antonio Spurs have a better history than the Bulls even with one less championship.The spurs have the best win percentage in nba history and they have been a contender more often than the Bulls.They were good with David Robinson too
Don't we have to split this in to before and after salary cap? For instance, Niners dominant run was, in part, fueled by high-level QB play. Realistically, the only reason they were able to collect and hang onto Montana, Young, Bono, Garcia, etc was because for portions of that run there was no cap.
I just think the drafting, roster depth, etc was fundamentally different before and post cap. May not be "fair" to compare between the two.
Array title="tube517 has a reputation beyond repute">
I had his card, too!I remember Tim Fox too, but only because of the hair...
Array title="GBMelBlount has a reputation beyond repute">
Agreed.
Also, Belichick had 25 years of coaching under his belt to prepare for his opportunity with the Patriots.
Tomlin had 10.
In other words, all of Tomlins accomplishments to date as a head coach are at an age before Belichek even became a head crotch.
And I believe Tomlin is getting better every year...although his dancing still needs a lot of work.
"With love, with patience, and with Faith
....She'll make her way" ~ Natalie Merchant
The Patriots were not a great team in the 70s. They made the playoffs only twice, did not win a playoff game, did not have a winning record until more than halfway through the decade, and had more seasons with 3 or fewer wins than postseason appearances. The 2000s niners which you classified as suck had as many playoff appearances as the 70s patriots and unlike the 70s Patriots, the 00s niners won a playoff game. I would also use a different word to describe the 70s Pats and the 90s niners. The 90s niners won a Super Bowl, went to 5 NFC Championship games, had 6 first round byes, won 12+ games 6 times, and didn't have a season that finished under 10 wins untill 99
Array title="tube517 has a reputation beyond repute">
Agreed.
Also, Belichick had 25 years of coaching under his belt to prepare for his opportunity with the Patriots.
Tomlin had 10.
In other words, all of Tomlins accomplishments to date as a head coach are at an age before Belichek even became a head crotch.
And I believe Tomlin is getting better every year...although his dancing still needs a lot of work.
Even after the 1970s, the steelers have been in the AFC title game, 10 times since 1980 and 9 times in the last 25 years with 4 super bowl appearance.
The pats have been in the AFC title game, only 2 times before the 2000s.
Array title="Born2Steel has a reputation beyond repute">
This = /thread.
Clarify for me... are we talking about greatest team over the entire past 45 years? Or, the best team "for one season" during that 45 years???
What you posted sounds like the latter... and I'd take the '85 Bears against anybody.
Using your last paragraph as a launching point, I'd love to see Dan Marino pass using today's rules.
Marino vs. Fouts... 77-63
Not the best individual team for a season; that was a tangent.
For the best sustained run of success - like, not only were they dominant for a long time, but the team itself could 1v1 the opponent you're talking about, the 49ers and Cowboys both beat the Patriots, the 49ers even more so because they carried it over two different quarterbacks and without losing so many Super Bowls.
From a franchise-over-50-years standpoint, then it's more like the Cowboys beat the Patriots and the 49ers tie the Patriots ... then the Raiders and Packers with multiple long periods of success beat them in a franchise respect, but probably had a lower peak. I guess the Giants have to be thrown into the mix also; 4 Super Bowls over a 30-year mostly successful span is no joke either.
As far as the '85 Bears ... I don't put the Bears up there as the best franchise, but the point there was that the '80s Bears COULD have easily won multiple championships in most eras, as could the '80s-'90s Giants, if they weren't unlucky enough to play at the same time as two superteams. That makes the 49ers and Cowboys' accomplishments that much more impressive; the competition was FIERCE.
So I guess that what I'm saying is that by any standard, the Patriots are at most fourth-best, and if you stretch it outside of one run of success, even lower than that. They've had one good run and a couple of title game losses where they were lucky to be there, and otherwise mostly been a laughingstock that I can remember.
See you Space Cowboy ...
Since when does "fair" apply to the Patriots?
But in all seriousness, you can argue that both ways. The Patriots would not be as successful if it were not for all the financial rules (which they are among the best at navigating). Most of their challengers end up being gutted repeatedly due to salary cap issues. They have figured out a system that takes best advantage of the current rules - in particular, an offensive scheme that requires one semi-talented player and you can pretty much plug-and-play the rest - and build the team around that and good coaching. I don't think they're as good of a football team as any of the "dynasty" teams before them, and probably not even as good as a lot of teams that played second-fiddle to the dynasties, and the way they got there is certainly less inspiring.
It's kind of like how Floyd Mayweather dominated boxing - winning a lot of fights by the rules by being technically sound, even though it was cheap as hell and everyone hated it. But I don't think you'll find many people who think Tyson at his best wouldn't have beat the dogshit out of him, or who wouldn't love to see him do it.
See you Space Cowboy ...
Array title="GBMelBlount has a reputation beyond repute">
Here is the CBS Sports 2015 ranking of the top nfl teams of the superbowl era.
1. Dallas Cowboys (164 points)
2. Pittsburgh Steelers (161 points)
3. San Francisco 49ers (129 points)
4. Oakland Raiders (126 points)
5. Green Bay Packers (124 points)
6. New England Patriots (112 points)
7. Washington Redskins (108 points)
8. Miami Dolphins (104 points)
9. Minnesota Vikings (104 points)
10. Denver Broncos (101 points)
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/th...uper-bowl-era/
"With love, with patience, and with Faith
....She'll make her way" ~ Natalie Merchant
Top 9 Football Dynasties
Ranking the 9 greatest dynasties in NFL history
1
New England Patriots (2001-16)
Playoff appearances: 14
Super Bowl appearances: 7
Super Bowl wins: 5
The Patriots’ dynasty has been longer than any other in NFL history, and it’s by many standards the most impressive. In the span of 16 years, the Patriots have made the playoffs 14 times, reached seven Super Bowls and won five championships. They’re now just one Super Bowl shy of the Steelers for the most in NFL history despite winning all of theirs in a much shorter timeframe.
Not to mention, the Patriots have done all of this in the salary cap and free agency era, which makes it much more difficult for franchises to keep teams together. It’s a testament to the greatness of Bill Belichick and Tom Brady. Only once have they finished a season with fewer than 10 wins. That’s otherworldly and something that never happens.
http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/gallery/nfl-dynasties-greatest-best-cowboys-steelers-patriots-packers-ranking-021717
...............................
As far as the NFL goes it's the Patriots hands down. The only question is are they up there with the Celtics? I would say one more SB win in the next 2 years and you can say unequivocally the 2 greatest dynasties in all of sports are the Boston Celtics, and the New England Patriots, in a tie, followed by the Yankees, and the Canadians.
Array title="Born2Steel has a reputation beyond repute">
What does CBS know? Straight from NFL.com....
http://www.nfl.com/superbowl/records...ffs/team/games
This is last 50 years not just last 16 years. From 1966-2000 the Pats were a losing franchise. 9 postseason appearances (10 if you count a pre-Super Bowl era postseason appearance), 6 playoff wins, and they had more seasons where they finished with the worst record in the NFL than they had seasons where they won a playoff game.
It's not the Patriots...there's no longevity there...lol. Dallas Would probably be number 2
Of course 16 years worth of longevity is what makes the Patriots number 1. I'll let you, Dallas, the 49ers, Green Bay, etc., argue over whose flash in the pan was the brightest?
Uhh ... hey trollface. Your team doesn't even have the best 16-year stretch. And that's ALL they've got.
See you Space Cowboy ...
Array title="GBMelBlount has a reputation beyond repute">
Blackie, it is a real pleasure to have you here.
Based on your compelling arguments (and yours alone!), you have caused me to completely rethink things and catapult the Patriots to THE #5 team over the last 50 years!!!!!!
------------------
Here is the CBS Sports 2015 ranking of the top nfl teams of the superbowl era.
1. Dallas Cowboys (164 points)
2. Pittsburgh Steelers (161 points)
3. San Francisco 49ers (129 points)
4. Oakland Raiders (126 points)
5. New England Patriots (112 points)
6. Green Bay Packers (124 points)
7. Washington Redskins (108 points)
8. Miami Dolphins (104 points)
9. Minnesota Vikings (104 points)
10. Denver Broncos (101 points)
"With love, with patience, and with Faith
....She'll make her way" ~ Natalie Merchant
I know reading and reading comprehension is difficult for the average Brady/Bellichick fangirl so maybe I shouldn't be surprised he didn't comprehend the subject of the thread so let me spell it out for you. It's performance last 50 years not last 16 years
Fireworks are beautiful to watch. They appear out of the night ski, flashing, exploding, expanding, and then they're gone. The Steelers put on a great show over 6 years. Over the next 36 years they are a 2 for 4 in SBs, Denver-lite. The Patriots on the other hand almost can't play a game without Belichick and/or Brady, breaking a record.
....
Okay. Lol. 16 years worth of cheating maybe? Even if they played it straight, which they clearly did not, 16 years isn't longevity over a 50 year period...lol. Duh.
It's okay, 4th or 5th over a 50-year period isn't so bad. Nothing for you to cry over.
Honestly I would just stop talking to this clown, he's obviously just a troll who gets off on it.
"Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience."
See you Space Cowboy ...
I would agree that the question is who is the second greatest team over the last 50 years, because without question this Patriot team is number 1. Same coach, same QB, 16 years, 14 playoffs, 7 Super Bowl appearances, 5 wins, only one season under 10 wins. Who's the troll? Anyone who doubts that the crown is on display at Gillette.
Yeah, it's impossible to have a rationale discussion with a brady/bellichick fan. They forgo rational discussion for ballwashing their team and trashing every other team then throw a bitch fit if you bring up spygate or deflategate
Boston fans probably have the worst reputation in sports.
Steeler fans walk around with a white cane, and sunglasses.
Fans are not responsible for the successes of the pats....The players are.
So your arrogance is pathetic since you are in no way responsible for the success of the Pats.
You are surely a warriors fan too in the NBA.
Okay. Let's try this. 16 is only a portion of 50. In fact it is only about one third. So does a dominant run for one third outweigh the wretchedness of the other two thirds?
Boston has a shitty (and richly deserved) reputation in general. And yeah, it kills me whenever they bring up Bill Russell and the '60s Celtics in particular while beating their chests about Boston's "sports tradition":
Read more: Playing Through the PainCeltics Hall of Famer Bill Russell may have been named one of the NBA’s 50 greatest players, but that didn’t shield him from bigotry during his playing days. Russell, who once called Boston a “flea market of racism,” even had vandals break into his home just to defecate in his bed. His teammates also felt the hatred. “We were living in Framingham when I was a player,” recalls Celtics Hall of Famer K. C. Jones. “I went to buy a house about five blocks away…. The neighbors said they didn’t want any blacks to move into the house.” Another time, Jones applied for membership at a country club, only to be told they weren’t fond of “entertainers.” Still, Jones is quick to point out that he enjoyed his time in Boston, and that things have changed. He even calls me back to make sure I note that he harbors no ill will. He stresses this. But he also knows that the city’s racism didn’t end with him or Russell.
And another "gem": Why Boston's Sports Teams Can't Escape the City's Racism
And another one whose undivided attention will probably turn back to DA SAWX after Brady retires and the Patriots fall back to mediocrity. At its heart, Boston is still a baseball town, first and foremost...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
