Array title="GBMelBlount has a reputation beyond repute">
We are going on 50 years since the merger and if I am not mistaken the Steelers have been blessed to have more Lombardi's and wins than any other team.
So while they are without question the greatest team in the last 50 years, I am curious what team you consider for the 2nd best by whatever standard YOU choose.
Superbowl wins
Regular season wins
Great coaches, players and rivalries.
etc.
For me #2 is the Cowboys.
"With love, with patience, and with Faith
....She'll make her way" ~ Natalie Merchant
Taperiots
It's probably the cowboys....Even if they have not been the same since 1997, they still have a winning record since that time.
The packers deserve a mention, but they had a long bad period between Vince Lombardi and Brett Favre (1968 to 1991)
I don't want to see a mention on the pats, since they are the Chicago Bulls of the nfl....Great for almost 20 years, but they were 60 games under .500 before Brady.
I don't consider the 49ers as a good choice too
- - - Updated - - -
The bulls did nothing without Michael Jordan.Originally Posted by teegre
Taperiots
It's the same thing for the Pats without Brady.
I see what you're trying to say.
But, even though the Bulls haven't won a championship without Jordan, the Steelers, Colts, (et al) haven't won a championship without a franchise QB. (Make sense?)
Plus, the fact is that when Jordan was playing, they were THE team to beat for 14 seasons (much like Brady's 17 seasons).
It's just that other teams have been more consistent than the Pats.
Before 2001, the pats had 60 games under .500 in their history.In the case of cowboys, although they have not had much success since 1997, they still have a winning record in this period and it is easily their worst period in their history.
The problem with the Patriots is their lack of consistency? Are you sure?
If you're going to put the Steelers No. 1, with only two SB victories in the 36 years following their run, how can you say the Patriots have been inconsistent while they are still involved in a, so far, 16 year stretch of dominance?
Probably because the Steelers still managed 2 Super Bowl wins in a 4 year stretch after their dynasty run while before 2001, the Patriots most memorable Super Bowl moment was getting whipped by the 85 Bears.
Array title="Born2Steel has a reputation beyond repute">
Patriots won in 2005, then next in 2015. 2 in 10 years is not dominance. 3 SBs in early 2000s, then 2 in the mid 20teens? Not exactly a dominating 16 year run. Won a lot of games, but so did other teams.
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.
Good points.
But... the Tapes were in a SuperBowl in the 80's and the 90's.
- - - Updated - - -
Wait... crap... I'm agreeing with a Taperiots fan.
KILL ME!!!
They had some pretty good teams in the late '70s too.
I think it has most to do with Belichick. He took over in 2000.
Hater = Realist
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
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.
49ers for sure. More ways to beat you than the Patriots and they had a better defense. Plus, they dominated a period that had three or four other teams that might otherwise have had a shot at being among the all-time best. (Bears, Giants, to a lesser extent the Redskins and Broncos)
Cowboys would be a close third for the same reasons, only because their success seemed to come in short bursts.
If we're talking head-to-head matchups, no compensating for different eras, the Patriots would get absolutely trounced by either of those teams as well as the Bears and possibly the Giants. I wouldn't even put them in the top 5 for overall franchise success (Raiders, and much as I hate them, the Packers).
I have to say, if there is one matchup I think would be fun to watch, it's the Patriots against the '80s Dolphins. Although the way those kinds of things turn out, the final score would probably be 10-6 or some bullshit.
See you Space Cowboy ...
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
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 ...
Cowgirls. They are the only other team in the Super Bowl era with 2 or more Super Bowl wins in 2 different decades. Plus every team had dry spells of mediocrity and went through long periods of time without Super Bowls so the Cowboys being irrelevant since 1997 doesn't detract my statement
I'm pretty sure that 2000 to 2010, and 2010 to now, is two different decades.
You're right, I was thinking, only other team that won 2+ Super Bowls in 2 non-consecutive decades, 2+ Super Bowls with 2 different QBs. And also 2 Super Bowls in 2 different decades without cheating
I would put Pats. SB appearance in 80's and 90's. Very, very bad team for a few stretches here and there, but overall actually a pretty good franchise.
Over 30 years total out of 50 of above .500 football.
I think that we are letting personal bias cloud our judgement.
If you told me that over the next 20 seasons, the Steelers would go to 8 SuperBowls, winning 5 of them... I'd take that in a heartbeat. And, so would every single one of you.
Let me put that into perspective... over the past 21 seasons, the Steelers have gone to 4 SuperBowls, winning 2 of them.
Of course, but the question is not which teams have had the most success since 2000, but which teams have had the most success since 50 years after the steelers.
If pats would have been successful in the 1980s and 1990s instead of the 2000s and 2010s and that the 49ers would have had their success in the 2000s and 2010s instead of the 1980s and 1990s, would the 49ers be considered as the 2nd best teams in the last 50 years instead?
Every team has periods of suck. Let's look specifically at the Niners and Tapes.
NINERS:
70's: suck
80's: dominant
90's: great
00's: suck
10's: 2012 SuperBowl
SuperBowl appearances: 6
SuperBowl victories: 5
TAPES:
70's: great
80's: 85 SuperBowl
90's: 96 SuperBowl
00's: dominant
10's: dominant
SuperBowl appearances: 9
SuperBowl victories: 5
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
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
Which is not bad because there are about 5 good teams in the league, year in year out, and if you're going to the SB every 5 years, or close to that, it says you're one of those 5 teams almost every year, because you're alternating with the other 4.
That theory may be a bit forced though.
As far as the Bulls go...
They have the third most championships in NBA history. We can take out the Celtics and Lakers (who are in their own stratosphere).
The next two teams (after the Bulls) are the Spurs (who never won anything without Tim Duncan) and the Warriors (who took 60 years to get their 5 championships).
SUMMATION:
Yep, I consider the Bulls (and Taperiots) to he pretty darn good.
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.
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 ...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
