This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I think this is a pretty good argument actually. As good as the '85 Bears were, a different team finished 18-1 just one year before they did and the Bears never even made it back to the Super Bowl with that team. Other than Wilbur Marshall, did they really lose anyone all that important that following year?
That's easy :1) S.F. 9ers, '88/'892) Pats '03/'043) Pittsburgh Steelers '74-'79 If the '85 Bears were "all that" they'd have won it twice. They were one of the best "single year" teams, but as far as a group of guys going out and winning games, I'l ltake the above list as they dominated over a longer period of time against better opposing teams in their conference.If these Pats win, they will be the, bar none, best single year team ever, and their dynasty rank will be #1 as well. Right now, I'd rank dynasties as:1) Steelers '74-'792) Pats '01-'043) Montana's 9ers4) Aikman/Smith/Irving Cowboys.I answered a question, its not right or wrong.I beleive Miami was a very weak team.IF NE wins, I think they are the best team of all time.Right now I think the 85 Bears are. 83 Raiders are in my top 10 by the way.Who do you have as the top 3 teams of all time?Were would you have this NE team IF they win?ThanksYeah, those Jets, Chiefs and Colts teams from the early days were real powerhouses. '83 Raiders? Puh-leeze. Look, the Dolphns may not be one of the best, but they are def. not like the one and dones over the years. They DID carry a 36-5-1 record and three Super Bowl appearances from '72-'74, were only dismantled by the start of a new league, and did something only 8 S.B. champs (them included) were able to do - repeat as champs the following year.OK, so the 72 Fins were better than JUST the 91 Giants.Alright I'll agree with this.
Nope - they were a one-hit wonder team that dominated that year. And that year only.The caught lightning by the tail and couldn't hold on - heck, early-mid 80s? They coulda been all cranked up the whole time like L.T. was with the later year G'ints. <<gg>>I am way more impressed with teams that can repeat with similar/same personnel. How good are you to win once? Good - but not as good as when someone says "so, now what?" And then you go out and do it again.
The '72 Dolphins were a very weak team???? The one thing about the NFL is that how good you are is not measured by computers or pollsters, but by win-loss record and championships. If you win every game by 1 point and go undefeated, you are a once or twice in a lifetime dominant team. If you went 17-0 and won the Super Bowl, you were a tremendously dominant team because every team you played was also an NFL team.Now, you can say that the '72 Dolphins had a weak schedule, but on that schedule was their season opener in K C, which was the inaugural game at Arrowhead, against a KC team that was looking to avenge their longest game playoff loss to the Dolphins the year before, and was then just 2 years removed from their own SB title, with basically their whole team still intact. The fins were an underdog in that game but came away with a no-contest 20-10 win. A couple of weeks later they played at Minnesota, still a top notch Super Bowl contender, and overcame a 14-6 deficit with less than 5 mins left (no 2 pt conversions then). They had to play the Steelers on the road in the AFC championship game, the same Steelers who were in the initial stages of the dominant team they were to become. Yet, they were still underdogs to the Redskins in the Super Bowl (though Jimmy the Greek denied it til his death). Maybe that Dolphin team saw no need to run up scores, because to Shula, the W was all that mattered. Maybe their schedule looked weaker than it was because all the teams in their division lost to them twice. You can also call them a "running" team, so it didnt matter that they lost their HOF QB in the 5th game, but when he returned at halftime of the AFC championship game facing a deficit, that HOF QB was able to connect with his HOF wide receiver for the hugest play of the game. When they needed that Griese to Warfield hookup, it was one of the premier duos in the history of the game.As you may be able to tell, i sat through almost sll of those games personally, and though that team didnt have the media hype of those later Steeler, Cowboy, 49er teams, they were every bit as dominant over the competitiion they had at the time. Having said all that and obviously a Dolphin historian of sorts, my personal opinion is that the Patriots accomplishment , assuming they win the SB, was tougher to achieve than it was for those '72 guys, because of the extra games, the intense media exposure, and the normal progression of the game toward parity.Most of those '72 Dolphins went on to very successful business careers, or government service and politics. With the Patriots great achievement, we should not take it as an opportunity to bash the guys that had a record, but rather acknowledge their greatness as it was at the time. If you personally held a record and someone asked you "sir, would you like for your record to be broken?", i think many or most might give a politically correct answer, but deep down, we all know what the answer really would be. Regardless of how many teams go undefeated from now til i die, that 72 season will always live with me as a very special time to be a fan, and we had many wonderful happy moments during that season, and could not get enough of the hype when it was over. Only those who have experienced it really know what its like, and only the true fan can feel it. You Pats fans that fit the description have a lifetime of memories to come after just one more game. ENJOY!I answered a question, its not right or wrong.I beleive Miami was a very weak team.IF NE wins, I think they are the best team of all time.Right now I think the 85 Bears are. 83 Raiders are in my top 10 by the way.Who do you have as the top 3 teams of all time?Were would you have this NE team IF they win?ThanksYeah, those Jets, Chiefs and Colts teams from the early days were real powerhouses. '83 Raiders? Puh-leeze. Look, the Dolphns may not be one of the best, but they are def. not like the one and dones over the years. They DID carry a 36-5-1 record and three Super Bowl appearances from '72-'74, were only dismantled by the start of a new league, and did something only 8 S.B. champs (them included) were able to do - repeat as champs the following year.OK, so the 72 Fins were better than JUST the 91 Giants.Alright I'll agree with this.
Different era with basicaly no big need to pass the ball often, then again you don't have to with the strong 3-headed running game that the 72 'phins had. Losing your starting QB back then would be like losing your FB now. Just like one of the most famous quotes of football, Dolphins ran the ball well and played good tough D. Nowadays you have most teams passing the ball on 3rd n 2 or 3 but in the olden days teams ran on 3rd n 4 consistantly.
Not aThat's easy :1) S.F. 9ers, '88/'892) Pats '03/'043) Pittsburgh Steelers '74-'79 If the '85 Bears were "all that" they'd have won it twice. They were one of the best "single year" teams, but as far as a group of guys going out and winning games, I'l ltake the above list as they dominated over a longer period of time against better opposing teams in their conference.If these Pats win, they will be the, bar none, best single year team ever, and their dynasty rank will be #1 as well. Right now, I'd rank dynasties as:1) Steelers '74-'792) Pats '01-'043) Montana's 9ers4) Aikman/Smith/Irving Cowboys.I answered a question, its not right or wrong.I beleive Miami was a very weak team.IF NE wins, I think they are the best team of all time.Right now I think the 85 Bears are. 83 Raiders are in my top 10 by the way.Who do you have as the top 3 teams of all time?Were would you have this NE team IF they win?ThanksYeah, those Jets, Chiefs and Colts teams from the early days were real powerhouses. '83 Raiders? Puh-leeze. Look, the Dolphns may not be one of the best, but they are def. not like the one and dones over the years. They DID carry a 36-5-1 record and three Super Bowl appearances from '72-'74, were only dismantled by the start of a new league, and did something only 8 S.B. champs (them included) were able to do - repeat as champs the following year.OK, so the 72 Fins were better than JUST the 91 Giants.Alright I'll agree with this.
So to be a Great team for one season, you have to be good for more than one season. Above is who you think is the best Dynasty Team, not the team who was the best for A season.So I'll ask it again, for the season, who was the best team ever?I think it was the 85 Bears.Who do you think? Or anyone else?
True true. Any team that goes undefeated has to be one of the better teams to ever play the game.Funny thing is they were only a -1 favorite to win the Super Bowl and just beat Washington.But yes they won every game that year.twitch said:
Maroney=Speed said:Not aThat's easy :1) S.F. 9ers, '88/'892) Pats '03/'043) Pittsburgh Steelers '74-'79 If the '85 Bears were "all that" they'd have won it twice. They were one of the best "single year" teams, but as far as a group of guys going out and winning games, I'l ltake the above list as they dominated over a longer period of time against better opposing teams in their conference.If these Pats win, they will be the, bar none, best single year team ever, and their dynasty rank will be #1 as well. Right now, I'd rank dynasties as:1) Steelers '74-'792) Pats '01-'043) Montana's 9ers4) Aikman/Smith/Irving Cowboys.I answered a question, its not right or wrong.I beleive Miami was a very weak team.IF NE wins, I think they are the best team of all time.Right now I think the 85 Bears are. 83 Raiders are in my top 10 by the way.Who do you have as the top 3 teams of all time?Were would you have this NE team IF they win?ThanksYeah, those Jets, Chiefs and Colts teams from the early days were real powerhouses. '83 Raiders? Puh-leeze. Look, the Dolphns may not be one of the best, but they are def. not like the one and dones over the years. They DID carry a 36-5-1 record and three Super Bowl appearances from '72-'74, were only dismantled by the start of a new league, and did something only 8 S.B. champs (them included) were able to do - repeat as champs the following year.OK, so the 72 Fins were better than JUST the 91 Giants.Alright I'll agree with this.So to be a Great team for one season, you have to be good for more than one season.
Above is who you think is the best Dynasty Team, not the team who was the best for A season.So I'll ask it again, for the season, who was the best team ever?I think it was the 85 Bears.Who do you think? Or anyone else?
Whatever - we are talking semantics here. I can probably dig up some stats showing that the Montana 9ers teams and the Aikman.Irving.Smith 'boys teams faced tougher competition and, therefore, were more impressive. Don't feel like it as I have a lot more to do today than spend half of it researching 10-20 year old stats. But, the '85 Bears were quite dominant that year. IMO, had they faced Montana's 9ers of the late 80s, or the 'boys in their prime, they would not have won any Super Bowls.Regardless, it is ridiculous to call the '72 Dolphins the second weakest team to win a Super Bowl when you didn't make any mention of the other teams I did. Therefore, I answered the question with support for my position - that the '72 Dolphins were not the best champs of all time, but they certainly are not near the bottom of S.B. champs. And that proof requires evidence of their continued success before and after being S.B. champs.
Just read post above yours about 72 team.I guess you think Deion Sanders is the best DB of all time.He was a Huge part of both Dallas and SF Super Bowl teams.I would agree with you if you said Yes.Maroney=Speed said:Not aThat's easy :1) S.F. 9ers, '88/'892) Pats '03/'043) Pittsburgh Steelers '74-'79 If the '85 Bears were "all that" they'd have won it twice. They were one of the best "single year" teams, but as far as a group of guys going out and winning games, I'l ltake the above list as they dominated over a longer period of time against better opposing teams in their conference.If these Pats win, they will be the, bar none, best single year team ever, and their dynasty rank will be #1 as well. Right now, I'd rank dynasties as:1) Steelers '74-'792) Pats '01-'043) Montana's 9ers4) Aikman/Smith/Irving Cowboys.I answered a question, its not right or wrong.I beleive Miami was a very weak team.IF NE wins, I think they are the best team of all time.Right now I think the 85 Bears are. 83 Raiders are in my top 10 by the way.Who do you have as the top 3 teams of all time?Were would you have this NE team IF they win?ThanksYeah, those Jets, Chiefs and Colts teams from the early days were real powerhouses. '83 Raiders? Puh-leeze. Look, the Dolphns may not be one of the best, but they are def. not like the one and dones over the years. They DID carry a 36-5-1 record and three Super Bowl appearances from '72-'74, were only dismantled by the start of a new league, and did something only 8 S.B. champs (them included) were able to do - repeat as champs the following year.OK, so the 72 Fins were better than JUST the 91 Giants.Alright I'll agree with this.So to be a Great team for one season, you have to be good for more than one season.
Above is who you think is the best Dynasty Team, not the team who was the best for A season.So I'll ask it again, for the season, who was the best team ever?I think it was the 85 Bears.Who do you think? Or anyone else?
Is this what you were looking for? Cause I already said it.Re: Deon - I have no idea what point you are making there or why you would guess I think that. If it is because he was on both teams, individual players are not made great based on their teams' success.But, for the record, I think Prime Time is one of, if not the, best CB/returners to ever play the game. People forget the fact that he was one of the first true shut down corners. Like Champ Bailey, his success is not measured in stats because teams basically gave up throwing to his side of the field
I sleep better, thanks.
you're not saying that they "barely" beat Washington, i hope. That game was totally dominated by the fins in every aspect of the game except kicker passing rating. They really could have just about named the score.The betting line actually fluctuated between Wash -3 and dolphins -1, dont recall what it actually closed at.True true. Any team that goes undefeated has to be one of the better teams to ever play the game.Funny thing is they were only a -1 favorite to win the Super Bowl and just beat Washington.But yes they won every game that year.twitch said:
concur
What baseball team is the best? 1927 Yanks, correct?concur
I'd respond to this in greater detail but it really isn't worth it. They won all their games that year after coming off a Super Bowl appearance, they chased it with a Super Bowl victory, and then repeated that task the next year. No team can go 36-5-1 with three Super Bowl appearances and two wins without being a damn good team.Once again for the hard of reading - noone is saying the '72 version is one of the all-time best S.B. teams, but it is just as ridiculous to call them one of the worst. Heck, even Don Shula has stated that he thinks winning it all the following year was more impressive, but it was, essentially, the same team of players.
:whoosh:What baseball team is the best? 1927 Yanks, correct?concur
Why? Who is then?:XWhat baseball team is the best? 1927 Yanks, correct?concur
The Dolphins certainly were the better team that game, but let's not get carried away. Even without the Yepremian pass, the score was 14-0, not exactly a mauling.And I still remember the pass to the wide open Wash receiver in the end zone that tipped off the goal post that could have been a TD.The best thing about the Patriots season is that we won't have to hear anymore about the '72 Dolphins.you're not saying that they "barely" beat Washington, i hope. That game was totally dominated by the fins in every aspect of the game except kicker passing rating. They really could have just about named the score.The betting line actually fluctuated between Wash -3 and dolphins -1, dont recall what it actually closed at.True true. Any team that goes undefeated has to be one of the better teams to ever play the game.Funny thing is they were only a -1 favorite to win the Super Bowl and just beat Washington.But yes they won every game that year.twitch said:
For you that is the correct answer.You like a team that repeats.1927 team did not win in 1928, the next time that team won or a Yank team won was 1936.But I'm sure most if not all Baseball people would say the 1927 Yanks.But I get your point.
Its all a matter of opinion and anyone can crunch numbers any way they want to back them up:1) Steelers '74-'79
No worries, 85 Bears team THAT year was better than any other.Ask me this question Next Monday, and I'm sure I will tell you The 85 Bears were 2nd best.
I see what you are saying, but you are automatically not a dynasty of you don't win championships. As in plural.Otherwise, we could talk about the Colts when discussing dynasties. ETA - or the Eagles a few years ago, or the Bills in the late 80s/early 90s. Winning one doesn't cut it for "dynasty" teams. The players on the '85 Bears team were never able to win their own conference again, so they are disqualified from dynasty talk.3nOut said:
How about the Broncos with 2 rings? Is that a "baby dynasty"?
Sure! For three years they were a pretty dominant team and they had multiple championships.
