2nd Greatest NFL Team of Last 50 years?

[GBMelBlount]

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.

[teegre]

Taperiots

[polamalubeast]

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 - - -

Taperiots

The bulls did nothing without Michael Jordan.

It's the same thing for the Pats without Brady.

[teegre]

The bulls did nothing without Michael Jordan.

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).

[polamalubeast]

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.

[steelreserve]

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.

[st33lersguy]

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

[BostonBlackie]

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?

[teegre]

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.

Good points.

But... the Tapes were in a SuperBowl in the 80's and the 90's.

- - - Updated - - -

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?

Wait... crap... I'm agreeing with a Taperiots fan.

KILL ME!!!

[BostonBlackie]

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.

[st33lersguy]

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 they 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.

[fansince'76]

Good points.

But... the Tapes were in a SuperBowl in the 80's and the 90's.

They had some pretty good teams in the late '70s too.

[lipps83]

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.

[BostonBlackie]

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.

Well, certainly the Patriots had a long dry spell, but I think they've made up for it. You can debate that though, I agree. It's all fun anyway.

[teegre]

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.

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

[st33lersguy]

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

[teegre]

They had some pretty good teams in the late '70s too.

Yep

Sam "Bam" Cunningham

[BostonBlackie]

Yep

Sam "Bam" Cunningham

That team with Fransis, Hannah, etc., was their best team until the 2000s.

- - - Updated - - -

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

Now lets be nice.

[Born2Steel]

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?

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.

[BostonBlackie]

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.

I don't know. 7 trips to the SB, with 5 wins, in 16 years is pretty dominate.

[Born2Steel]

I don't know. 7 trips to the SB, with 5 wins, in 16 years is pretty dominate.

I would have to agree. You don't know.

[BostonBlackie]

I would have to agree. You don't know.

I think if you spent less time trying to be dominant yourself, you might be able to see how dominant the Patriots have been.

[teegre]

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.

[polamalubeast]

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?

[teegre]

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.

[BostonBlackie]

Let me put that into perspective... over the past 21 seasons, the Steelers have gone to 4 SuperBowls, winning 2 of them.

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.

[Steeldude]

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.

It's the same thing for the Pats without Brady.

I think it has most to do with Belichick. He took over in 2000.

[tube517]

They had some pretty good teams in the late '70s too.

The 76 team handed the Raiders their only loss that year and nearly beat the Raiders in the playoffs that same year when the Raiders dominated.

(Grogan, Francis, Sam Bam, Mike Haynes, John Hannah) I used to have football cards in the 70s. Lot of gum chewing back then

Hate to say it but they have been to the Super Bowl every decade from the 80s until now. Not dominant teams but have had success.

[teegre]

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

[fansince'76]

The 76 team handed the Raiders their only loss that year and nearly beat the Raiders in the playoffs that same year when the Raiders dominated.

(Grogan, Francis, Sam Bam, Mike Haynes, John Hannah) I used to have football cards in the 70s. Lot of gum chewing back then

I remember Tim Fox too, but only because of the hair...