Better offensive teams then the Patriots. (1 Viewer)

[Tau837]

All this crap about the Patriots being the best offense ever is bothering me now. How come everything nowadays is the "Best Ever"? I have several reasons why I do not think they are even close to the best team ever, much less the best offense ever. To just be quick about it, I don't think their defense is I want to hear from others to see how far this lunacy has spread.

The Pats are running up the score. Calling TO's in the 4th quarter when up by 21+ on more then one occasion, two TD's in the last few minutes. I'm not debating on if it should or shouldn't be done here. I'm just stating the fact that I have never seen another team purposely run up the score like the Pats have. I'm 100% sure some of the past teams could have run up the score more then they did. The Pats are really not holding back till the final second comes off the clock. Their defense is so schematically ahead of other teams it's crazy. BB may indeed be the best modern day coach that has ever walked the gridiron. For Tom Brady and Co., it's awfully easy to abuse a defense that has been out there all day long because their offense. Not only are they already performing well against them, they keep throwing into the 4th quarter when the other team's defense has been on the field all day because their O couldn't stay on the field.

The teams the Pats are facing aren't even in the same league as some of the past generations teams. There was no salary cap. Teams used to be loaded with talent. Now with FA and the salary cap, all the teams throughout the league are watered down. It's next to impossible to be loaded at every position like teams in the past.

Im not stating this as fact, just giving my opinion.

A lot can happen in the final 8 games of the season, so it's really unfair to compare the Patriots place in history until the season has finished up. But, since the thread seems to have some legs to it, let's look at this objectively, strictly a comparison of the numbers:Through their first 8 games:

2140 yards passing
934 yards rushing
331 pointsProrating those numbers would yield a season of:

6,148 yards from scrimmage
662 pointsThe Pats 6,148 yards wouldn't be close to the all-time marks (St. Louis '00, Miami '84 and San Francisco '98).

However, their points scored would demolish the Vikings current record of 556 by a wide margin.

So really the argument becomes, which is the better barometer of offensive dominance? Points scored or total yards? I, for one, think tie clearly goes to points scored (that's how you win games); but if you want to argue otherwise, so be it.

IMHO, the only team that really is in the argument here is St. Louis in 2000. They are the only team to rank in the top 3 ALL TIME in yards and points for a season. First in points, 3rd in yards.

Another interesting thing about the Rams, is they did it despite losing their starting All Pro QB for 5+ games.

 

[Tau837]

And I keep seeing the '99 Rams mentioned...that wasn't the best Rams offense, the '00 vintage was better (most yards in NFL history, 3rd most points in league history).

I think what offenses are mentioned depends on interpretation of the question. That is, can one's choice be based solely on what happened (i.e., how many points were scored and yards were gained) or can it be subjective, to allow for teams one believes had the capacity to score much more but chose not to for whatever reason?

 

[Jason Wood]

And I keep seeing the '99 Rams mentioned...that wasn't the best Rams offense, the '00 vintage was better (most yards in NFL history, 3rd most points in league history).

I think what offenses are mentioned depends on interpretation of the question. That is, can one's choice be based solely on what happened (i.e., how many points were scored and yards were gained) or can it be subjective, to allow for teams one believes had the capacity to score much more but chose not to for whatever reason?

Actually, I think people's mistaken use of the '99 Rams is much more about the surprising dominance of that team from start to finish. No one could believe that Kurt Warner could play that well, start to finish, and then they won the SB on top of it all. Coming back in 2000, the team was expected to be awesome, and ended up finishing 10-6 despite having a better offense statistically (but worse defense by quite a bit). A more interesting question is, are the Pats on pace to have the most dominant season in history? In most cases, dominant teams have had great defenses, to boot. If you look at the Pats point and yardage differentials, they are on pace to crush those marks too. I think that's a better discussion point b/c it opens the door to throw in great defensive teams into the conversation, to boot.

 

[BoltBacker]

A more interesting question is, are the Pats on pace to have the most dominant season in history? In most cases, dominant teams have had great defenses, to boot. If you look at the Pats point and yardage differentials, they are on pace to crush those marks too. I think that's a better discussion point b/c it opens the door to throw in great defensive teams into the conversation, to boot.

... I smell the makings of a blog article. Nice work on the FBG blog btw Wood. I'm sure you've already started it and can't wait to read it.

 

[Jason Wood]

A more interesting question is, are the Pats on pace to have the most dominant season in history? In most cases, dominant teams have had great defenses, to boot. If you look at the Pats point and yardage differentials, they are on pace to crush those marks too. I think that's a better discussion point b/c it opens the door to throw in great defensive teams into the conversation, to boot.

... I smell the makings of a blog article. Nice work on the FBG blog btw Wood. I'm sure you've already started it and can't wait to read it.

 

[twitch]

All this crap about the Patriots being the best offense ever is bothering me now. How come everything nowadays is the "Best Ever"? I have several reasons why I do not think they are even close to the best team ever, much less the best offense ever. To just be quick about it, I don't think their defense is I want to hear from others to see how far this lunacy has spread.

The Pats are running up the score. Calling TO's in the 4th quarter when up by 21+ on more then one occasion, two TD's in the last few minutes. I'm not debating on if it should or shouldn't be done here. I'm just stating the fact that I have never seen another team purposely run up the score like the Pats have. I'm 100% sure some of the past teams could have run up the score more then they did. The Pats are really not holding back till the final second comes off the clock. Their defense is so schematically ahead of other teams it's crazy. BB may indeed be the best modern day coach that has ever walked the gridiron. For Tom Brady and Co., it's awfully easy to abuse a defense that has been out there all day long because their offense. Not only are they already performing well against them, they keep throwing into the 4th quarter when the other team's defense has been on the field all day because their O couldn't stay on the field.

The teams the Pats are facing aren't even in the same league as some of the past generations teams. There was no salary cap. Teams used to be loaded with talent. Now with FA and the salary cap, all the teams throughout the league are watered down. It's next to impossible to be loaded at every position like teams in the past.

Im not stating this as fact, just giving my opinion.

A lot can happen in the final 8 games of the season, so it's really unfair to compare the Patriots place in history until the season has finished up. But, since the thread seems to have some legs to it, let's look at this objectively, strictly a comparison of the numbers:Through their first 8 games:

2140 yards passing
934 yards rushing
331 pointsProrating those numbers would yield a season of:

6,148 yards from scrimmage
662 pointsThe Pats 6,148 yards wouldn't be close to the all-time marks (St. Louis '00, Miami '84 and San Francisco '98).

However, their points scored would demolish the Vikings current record of 556 by a wide margin.

So really the argument becomes, which is the better barometer of offensive dominance? Points scored or total yards? I, for one, think tie clearly goes to points scored (that's how you win games); but if you want to argue otherwise, so be it.

IMHO, the only team that really is in the argument here is St. Louis in 2000. They are the only team to rank in the top 3 ALL TIME in yards and points for a season. First in points, 3rd in yards.

Jay-Those offensive yardage #s look like 7 game stats. I think they need an update to get up to 8 game speed. Im pretty sure there are on more of a 7000plus yard pace.

 

[Routilla]

I'll take the '92 Cowboys with Troy, Emmitt, Irvin, Harper, Moose, Novacek and the incredible OL every time.

The 1992 Cowboys scored 409 pointsThe 1991 Redskins scored 485 points

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys let up 243 points

The 1991 Redskins let up 224 points

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys were 13-3 with all 3 losses coming in games they fully tried to win

The 1991 Redskins were 14-2 including a meaningless week 17 loss

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys worst game was a 31-7 loss in which they were thoroughly dominated

The 1991 Redskins biggest loss was a 3pt loss in which their opponent caught a hail mary and recovered an onside kick

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys gained 5718 total yards on offense

The 1991 Redskins gained 5820 total yards on offense

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys allowed 4278 total yards on defense

The 1991 Redskins allowed 4638 total yards on defense

Advantage: Cowboys

The 1992 Cowboys intercepted 17 passes

The 1991 Redskins intercepted 27 passes

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys threw 15 interceptions

The 1991 Redskins threw 11 interceptions

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys forced and recovered 21 fumbles

The 1991 Redskins forced and recovered 24 fumbles

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys fumbled and lost the ball 19 times

The 1991 Redskins fumbled and lost the ball 16 times

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys had 6 pro bowlers

The 1991 Redskins had 7 pro bowlers

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys had 44 sacks

The 1991 Redskins had 50 sacks

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys gave up 23 sacks

The 1991 Redskins gave up 9 sacks

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys averaged 18.891 yards per kickoff return

The 1991 Redskins averaged 18.897 yards per kickoff return

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys allowed 20.3 yards per kickoff return

The 1991 Redskins allowed 17.5 yards per kickoff return

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys averaged 12.5 yards per punt return

The 1991 Redskins averaged 13.3 yards per punt return

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys allowed 11.7 yards per punt return

The 1991 Redskins allowed 6.1 yards per punt return

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys averaged 43.0 yards per punt

The 1991 Redskins averaged 39.8 yards per punt

Advantage: Cowboys

The 1992 Cowboys made 24/35 field goals(68%)

The 1991 Redskins made 31/43 field goals(72%)

Advantage: Redskins

ESPN.com writer, Eddie Epstein came up with a forumla called "adjusted power index" which basically ranks all teams taking all factors into consideration. He explains his formula here.

The 1992 Cowboys did not make the list of top 10 all time

The 1991 Redskins had the 5th highest ranking of all time

Advantage: Redskins

Your stats and a dollar may get you a cheap cup of coffee. However, I would still take that Dallas team against anyone. They were hitting on all cylinders heading into the playoffs that year. My opinion is just that and your's or anyone's stat line will not change it. We'll agree to disagree so you can save the emoticons for someone who gives a crap about your comparison.

 

[((Morpheus))]

89 Niners:Joe Montana > Tom BradyRoger Craig > RBBC PatsRice > MossTaylor > WelkerBrent Jones > Watson/Kyle Brady49ers OL > Pats

Wrong on the first one.

 

[DawnBTVS]

Here's a comparison of past "great offenses" and I'm aware that I probably neglected some. The numbers have been round up/down to whole to make it easier. Granted, the Pats have played an easy schedule even w/SD and Washington but they compare favorably to past great offenses in all categories (although a little weak in RYPG). The only difference is that they are 'running up the score' on their opponents but even if that goes down, they'll still be in the 30+ range just like SF, Minnesota, and St. Louis.

1983 Washington Redskins: 34 PPG - 235 PYPG - 164 RYPG - 399 YPG

1984 Miami Dolphins: 32 PPG - 322 PYPG - 120 RYPG - 442 YPG

1984 San Francisco 49ers: 30 PPG - 255 PYPG - 154 RYPG - 409 YPG

1989 San Francisco 49ers: 28 PPG - 287 PYPG - 123 RYPG - 409 YPG

1991 Washington Redskins: 30 PPG - 236 PYPG - 128 RYPG - 364 YPG

1992 Dallas Cowboys: 26 PPG - 225 PYPG - 133 RYPG - 357 YPG

1993 Dallas Cowboys: 24 PPG - 226 PYPG - 135 RYPG - 361 YPG

1994 San Francisco 49ers: 32 PPG - 273 PYPG - 119 RYPG - 391 YPG

1995 Dallas Cowboys: 27 PPG - 234 PYPG - 138 RYPG - 371 YPG

1998 Minnesota Vikings: 35 PPG - 281 PYPG - 121 RYPG - 402 YPG

1998 Denver Broncos: 30 PPG - 238 PYPG - 154 RYPG - 392 YPG

1999 St. Louis Rams: 33 PPG - 286 PYPG - 129 RYPG - 415 YPG

2001 St. Louis Rams: 31 PPG - 306 PYPG - 127 RYPG - 433 YPG

2004 Indianapolis Colts: 33 PPG - 296 PYPG - 116 RYPG - 412 YPG

2007 New England Patriots: 41 PPG - 268 PYPG - 117 RYPG - 384 YPG

 

[redman]

Your stats and a dollar may get you a cheap cup of coffee. However, I would still take that Dallas team against anyone. They were hitting on all cylinders heading into the playoffs that year. My opinion is just that and your's or anyone's stat line will not change it. We'll agree to disagree so you can save the emoticons for someone who gives a crap about your comparison.

Translation: I'm happy living with my subjective and biased conclusion that the Cowboys were the best team ever, so damn you and your objective evidence!

 

[JamesTheScot]

I think this Pats team is one of the best ever. They are scoring but do so in fewer yards due to their D. I believe this O can drive the length of the field regardless of the starting field position due the O's efficiency - rock solid 3rd down efficiency. If the D wasn't as good, I think this O would be putting up crazy yardage numbers as well just because they'd be starting with a longer field on average. With this Pats team, you have a rare confluence of an O and a D that are very, very good independently of each other.

As for the "their competition isn't as strong due to this being the free agency era" argument ... that's just silly as the Pats' O suffers the same handicap. I agree that you must judge teams against the era in which they play. Free agency spreads the talent around on offense as well as defense. That argument makes no sense and may in fact make the Pats' accomplishment all the more impressive. Imagine what Brady could do if we traded the Pats' RBBC for Craig and Welker for Taylor!

Brady is demolishing the pedestal that Montana sits on in NFL history.

I've seen a list of the all the Pats' "late" 4th quarter scores. Only 2 or 3 seemed to be clearly running up the score. Scoring again with a 21 point lead when there's still 10 minutes left in the game does not qualify as running up the score IMHO. How many times have we seen a team rally late in the fourth? It actually started to happen to the Pats a week or two ago IIRC. Knock 21 points of their 8-week total and how do they compare? Also, putting up 21 points in the first half doesn't require sitting starters in the second half...even if you've held your opponent scoreless. A lot can happen in 30 minutes.

Besides, even if BB is running up the score...we've brought it on ourselves with all the "Billicheat" nonsense. People actually opined that the Pats were only as good as they were because of the video espionage and they may not be a legitimate SB winner! Reap what you sow. BB is sticking his thumb in your eye and rubbing your nose in it. Cry "Uncle" and he may call of the dogs.

At this point I'd take Brady over both Montana and Manning. Brady hasn't ever had a WR corp on par with Rice/Taylor or Harrison/Wayne until this season. He still hasn't had a RB on par with Craig or James, either.

 

[Statorama]

Rule changes have continued to favor the offense. The rules for DBs bumping WRs were different when those 49ers, Broncos, Rams etc played. It is hard to compare teams of different eras

Good point.

 

[TommyGilmore]

Cassel has played 1.5 quarters this season! Check the stats. Before last week, he had taken 2 kneeldown snaps.

Yes, the Pats are great, probably one of the best offenses ever. But they are playing differently than other teams in history. As so many others have mentioned, I have never seen a coach this smart work so hard to rack up stats and break records.

New England offensive points by quarter:1st Quarter: 79

2nd Quarter: 86

3rd Quarter: 52

4th Quarter: 79

1st Half: 20.6 points per game

2nd Half: 16.4 points per game

If they're running up the score, it looks like they're doing it in the 2nd quarter.

 

[redman]

Cassel has played 1.5 quarters this season! Check the stats. Before last week, he had taken 2 kneeldown snaps.

Yes, the Pats are great, probably one of the best offenses ever. But they are playing differently than other teams in history. As so many others have mentioned, I have never seen a coach this smart work so hard to rack up stats and break records.

New England offensive points by quarter:1st Quarter: 79

2nd Quarter: 86

3rd Quarter: 52

4th Quarter: 79

1st Half: 20.6 points per game

2nd Half: 16.4 points per game

If they're running up the score, it looks like they're doing it in the 2nd quarter.

@ the obtuseness. That only scratches the surface. What's their average lead in the 2nd half when they're scoring at about the same clip as the first? The 4 pt dropoff in scoring average isn't exactly dramatic, especially under the circumstances.

 

[Bodysnatcher]

I don't know about best offense... but the 1992-1993 Cowboys would beat the Patriots. Better defense, and Pats D wouldn't be shutting down Emmitt, Aikman, Irving, Nov, ect...

 

[Routilla]

Your stats and a dollar may get you a cheap cup of coffee. However, I would still take that Dallas team against anyone. They were hitting on all cylinders heading into the playoffs that year. My opinion is just that and your's or anyone's stat line will not change it. We'll agree to disagree so you can save the emoticons for someone who gives a crap about your comparison.

Translation: I'm happy living with my subjective and biased conclusion that the Cowboys were the best team ever, so damn you and your objective evidence!

Exactly. Team loyalty is critical at this point. I'm sure there's at least one Redskins team that you would feel the same about, right?

 

[redman]

Your stats and a dollar may get you a cheap cup of coffee. However, I would still take that Dallas team against anyone. They were hitting on all cylinders heading into the playoffs that year. My opinion is just that and your's or anyone's stat line will not change it. We'll agree to disagree so you can save the emoticons for someone who gives a crap about your comparison.

Translation: I'm happy living with my subjective and biased conclusion that the Cowboys were the best team ever, so damn you and your objective evidence!

Exactly. Team loyalty is critical at this point. I'm sure there's at least one Redskins team that you would feel the same about, right?

Honestly, I don't think so. In terms of points scored, the 1983 team compares, but I know that that team enjoyed a +42 turnover advantage (not a typo) so that offense was playing with a short field a LOT. The 1991 team compares, but it's hard for me with a straight face to say that an offense led by Mark Rypien, however hot he was that year, is on an equal footing with Tom Brady. There are no other comparisons in the modern era.

 

[Road Warriors]

Here's a comparison of past "great offenses" and I'm aware that I probably neglected some. The numbers have been round up/down to whole to make it easier. Granted, the Pats have played an easy schedule even w/SD and Washington but they compare favorably to past great offenses in all categories (although a little weak in RYPG). The only difference is that they are 'running up the score' on their opponents but even if that goes down, they'll still be in the 30+ range just like SF, Minnesota, and St. Louis.

1983 Washington Redskins: 34 PPG - 235 PYPG - 164 RYPG - 399 YPG

1984 Miami Dolphins: 32 PPG - 322 PYPG - 120 RYPG - 442 YPG

1984 San Francisco 49ers: 30 PPG - 255 PYPG - 154 RYPG - 409 YPG

1989 San Francisco 49ers: 28 PPG - 287 PYPG - 123 RYPG - 409 YPG

1991 Washington Redskins: 30 PPG - 236 PYPG - 128 RYPG - 364 YPG

1992 Dallas Cowboys: 26 PPG - 225 PYPG - 133 RYPG - 357 YPG

1993 Dallas Cowboys: 24 PPG - 226 PYPG - 135 RYPG - 361 YPG

1994 San Francisco 49ers: 32 PPG - 273 PYPG - 119 RYPG - 391 YPG

1995 Dallas Cowboys: 27 PPG - 234 PYPG - 138 RYPG - 371 YPG

1998 Minnesota Vikings: 35 PPG - 281 PYPG - 121 RYPG - 402 YPG

1998 Denver Broncos: 30 PPG - 238 PYPG - 154 RYPG - 392 YPG

1999 St. Louis Rams: 33 PPG - 286 PYPG - 129 RYPG - 415 YPG

2001 St. Louis Rams: 31 PPG - 306 PYPG - 127 RYPG - 433 YPG

2004 Indianapolis Colts: 33 PPG - 296 PYPG - 116 RYPG - 412 YPG

2007 New England Patriots: 41 PPG - 268 PYPG - 117 RYPG - 384 YPG

Yardage totals felt a little low, so I took a peek.From NFL.com...

2007 New England Patriots: 41 PPG - 303 PYPG - 136 RYPG - 439 YPG

 

[TommyGilmore]

That only scratches the surface. What's their average lead in the 2nd half when they're scoring at about the same clip as the first? The 4 pt dropoff in scoring average isn't exactly dramatic, especially under the circumstances.

Actually, I don't disagree that the Pats are running up the score. But I think the first half/second half splits show that the Pats are indeed easing up (if only slightly) and not running up the score as much as they could, if they really wanted to.edit: they're scoring 20 points per game against 1st string defenses while never playing backups.....and scoring 16 points per game against 1st/2nd string defenses while occasionally playing backups.

 

[Assani Fisher]

I'll take the '92 Cowboys with Troy, Emmitt, Irvin, Harper, Moose, Novacek and the incredible OL every time.

The 1992 Cowboys scored 409 pointsThe 1991 Redskins scored 485 points

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys let up 243 points

The 1991 Redskins let up 224 points

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys were 13-3 with all 3 losses coming in games they fully tried to win

The 1991 Redskins were 14-2 including a meaningless week 17 loss

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys worst game was a 31-7 loss in which they were thoroughly dominated

The 1991 Redskins biggest loss was a 3pt loss in which their opponent caught a hail mary and recovered an onside kick

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys gained 5718 total yards on offense

The 1991 Redskins gained 5820 total yards on offense

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys allowed 4278 total yards on defense

The 1991 Redskins allowed 4638 total yards on defense

Advantage: Cowboys

The 1992 Cowboys intercepted 17 passes

The 1991 Redskins intercepted 27 passes

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys threw 15 interceptions

The 1991 Redskins threw 11 interceptions

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys forced and recovered 21 fumbles

The 1991 Redskins forced and recovered 24 fumbles

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys fumbled and lost the ball 19 times

The 1991 Redskins fumbled and lost the ball 16 times

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys had 6 pro bowlers

The 1991 Redskins had 7 pro bowlers

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys had 44 sacks

The 1991 Redskins had 50 sacks

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys gave up 23 sacks

The 1991 Redskins gave up 9 sacks

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys averaged 18.891 yards per kickoff return

The 1991 Redskins averaged 18.897 yards per kickoff return

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys allowed 20.3 yards per kickoff return

The 1991 Redskins allowed 17.5 yards per kickoff return

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys averaged 12.5 yards per punt return

The 1991 Redskins averaged 13.3 yards per punt return

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys allowed 11.7 yards per punt return

The 1991 Redskins allowed 6.1 yards per punt return

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys averaged 43.0 yards per punt

The 1991 Redskins averaged 39.8 yards per punt

Advantage: Cowboys

The 1992 Cowboys made 24/35 field goals(68%)

The 1991 Redskins made 31/43 field goals(72%)

Advantage: Redskins

ESPN.com writer, Eddie Epstein came up with a forumla called "adjusted power index" which basically ranks all teams taking all factors into consideration. He explains his formula here.

The 1992 Cowboys did not make the list of top 10 all time

The 1991 Redskins had the 5th highest ranking of all time

Advantage: Redskins

Your stats and a dollar may get you a cheap cup of coffee. However, I would still take that Dallas team against anyone. They were hitting on all cylinders heading into the playoffs that year. My opinion is just that and your's or anyone's stat line will not change it. We'll agree to disagree so you can save the emoticons for someone who gives a crap about your comparison.

So basically you're saying that you're a homer and completely unwilling to change your view no matter how much statistical evidence points against it? Fair enough.I will ask you what exactly you mean by "hitting on all cylinders heading into the playoffs"? Actually I do know what you mean- you're looking for an excuse as to why Dallas doesn't match up stats wise with the Redskins and you're attempting to say that by the end of the season Dallas was playing better. Unfortunately, thats untrue as well....

Week 14: Dallas plays a Denver team that finished 8-8. They eek out a 31-27 win.

Week 15: Dallas loses to Washington, who finished 9-7 that year

Week 16: Dallas kills the 6-10 Falcons 41-17.

Week 17: Dallas beats a 6-10 Falcons team 27-14

So they barely beat a .500 team, lose to a 9-7 team(a team that would've been .500 had Dallas won that game), and soundly beat two 6-10 teams.....thats "firing on all cylinders"? You are biased indeed.

 

[Assani Fisher]

I don't know about best offense... but the 1992-1993 Cowboys would beat the Patriots. Better defense, and Pats D wouldn't be shutting down Emmitt, Aikman, Irving, Nov, ect...

I really don't understand why it seems like Cowboys fans, more than any other team, overrate their past teams. The early 90s Cowboys won 3 Super Bowls, so they definitely get points for longevity....and trust me- that is important. I'd much rather have 3 SBs than one amazing team like the mid 80s Bears. So I'm not bashing their success. However, I don't think their best team is anything better than 10th when ranking teams of the past 25 or so years.91 Skins, 85 Bears, 89 49ers, 04 Pats, 94 49ers, 96 Packers, 98 Broncos, 86 Giants, 00 Ravens were all better than the best Dallas team in any year(imo 92 was their best year with 93 one step behind, although if Emmitt hadn't held out then it would be even closer, so I won't really argue much either way).While its defintiely too early to say for sure, if these Pats continue on this pace, they'll be better than every team I mentioned! I think its comical to even compare the 92 Cowboys to them if they continue on this pace. Can any Cowboys fan provide an actual argument for them even BELONGING IN THE DISCUSSION besides "They were awesome...great o-line!!! Emmitt/Mike/Troy rule!!!!"? Take a look at the stats, records, SOS, everything and please get back to me.Edited to add: I have the 00 Ravens and 92 Cowboys ranked nearly identically, with a very slight edge given to the Ravens for the fact that after Dilfer took over they were much better statistically than the Cowboys(with Dilfer they outscored their opponent's by more than a 3-1 margin....take a look at some other great teams score differential and you'll realize how truly amazing that is). However, I'm not going to debate too much if someone says that they think the Cowboys team was better. However, every other team on my list I feel fairly strongly about that they were better than any Cowboys team, although as I said I greatly respect their longevity and I'd rather have 3 SB wins that one great team that wins one SB.Edited again to add: Just to give you one example of how amazing the Ravens were after Dilfer took over....these Pats, for as dominant as they are, are only outscoring their opponents by a 2.60-1 margin. The Ravens after Dilfer took over, outscored their opponents by a 3.06-1 margin.

 

[Bodysnatcher]

I don't know about best offense... but the 1992-1993 Cowboys would beat the Patriots. Better defense, and Pats D wouldn't be shutting down Emmitt, Aikman, Irving, Nov, ect...

I really don't understand why it seems like Cowboys fans, more than any other team, overrate their past teams. The early 90s Cowboys won 3 Super Bowls, so they definitely get points for longevity....and trust me- that is important. I'd much rather have 3 SBs than one amazing team like the mid 80s Bears. So I'm not bashing their success. However, I don't think their best team is anything better than 10th when ranking teams of the past 25 or so years.91 Skins, 85 Bears, 89 49ers, 04 Pats, 94 49ers, 96 Packers, 98 Broncos, 86 Giants, 00 Ravens were all better than the best Dallas team in any year(imo 92 was their best year with 93 one step behind, although if Emmitt hadn't held out then it would be even closer, so I won't really argue much either way).While its defintiely too early to say for sure, if these Pats continue on this pace, they'll be better than every team I mentioned! I think its comical to even compare the 92 Cowboys to them if they continue on this pace. Can any Cowboys fan provide an actual argument for them even BELONGING IN THE DISCUSSION besides "They were awesome...great o-line!!! Emmitt/Mike/Troy rule!!!!"? Take a look at the stats, records, SOS, everything and please get back to me.Edited to add: I have the 00 Ravens and 92 Cowboys ranked nearly identically, with a very slight edge given to the Ravens for the fact that after Dilfer took over they were much better statistically than the Cowboys(with Dilfer they outscored their opponent's by more than a 3-1 margin....take a look at some other great teams score differential and you'll realize how truly amazing that is). However, I'm not going to debate too much if someone says that they think the Cowboys team was better. However, every other team on my list I feel fairly strongly about that they were better than any Cowboys team, although as I said I greatly respect their longevity and I'd rather have 3 SB wins that one great team that wins one SB.Edited again to add: Just to give you one example of how amazing the Ravens were after Dilfer took over....these Pats, for as dominant as they are, are only outscoring their opponents by a 2.60-1 margin. The Ravens after Dilfer took over, outscored their opponents by a 3.06-1 margin.

My reasoning is very simple. Before the Salary Cap, which was basically put in place because the Cowboys and the 49ers had the league on lock down... dismantled those great teams, and no team will ever be stacked like that again. It is impossible to have all of those great players on the same team, because you could never keep it under cap. Now, the Patriots are a GREAT team, and a great dynasty. However, they are doing in a lesser version of the NFL. The teams are more evenly matched now, because of the salary cap, so you can't have teams LOADED like the Cowboys were. They had great players at every position. Hell, they blew out the Bills who went to the Super Bowl for the AFC 4 years in a row, and had a great team themselves. The Cowboys weren't normally a team that tried to blow teams out of the water on the scoreboard. They controlled the games, with great effecient offense, and great defense. They ran the ball down the other teams throat, and took control of the tempo of the game. The Patriots wouldn't be able to keep Dallas' D on the field all night long, because they wouldn't be shutting down Dallas' offense, themselves. What would happen is, come the 4th quarter, the score may be close... but Dallas' D would be fresh, and Pat's D would be beat down from the running game of the Cowboys, and huge smashmouth offensive line.... and the Boys would take over.Teams LOOK great when they have great coaching, and a very good team like the Pat's have these days... but they are not playing up against uncapped teams of the 90's, who were simply STACKED in all positions. Hell, you even went with the 94' Niners over the Boys, who only made it to the superbowl during Dallas' down year in between their Championships in 92', 93' , and 95'. No way that the Niners were just amazing for that year, and better than any of those Cowboys teams when the Boys won 3 out of those 4 years.If that Cowboys team was around today, with those same players on their team, playing against these salary capped teams of today... they would be cake-walking through them.

 

[Assani Fisher]

I don't know about best offense... but the 1992-1993 Cowboys would beat the Patriots. Better defense, and Pats D wouldn't be shutting down Emmitt, Aikman, Irving, Nov, ect...

I really don't understand why it seems like Cowboys fans, more than any other team, overrate their past teams. The early 90s Cowboys won 3 Super Bowls, so they definitely get points for longevity....and trust me- that is important. I'd much rather have 3 SBs than one amazing team like the mid 80s Bears. So I'm not bashing their success. However, I don't think their best team is anything better than 10th when ranking teams of the past 25 or so years.91 Skins, 85 Bears, 89 49ers, 04 Pats, 94 49ers, 96 Packers, 98 Broncos, 86 Giants, 00 Ravens were all better than the best Dallas team in any year(imo 92 was their best year with 93 one step behind, although if Emmitt hadn't held out then it would be even closer, so I won't really argue much either way).While its defintiely too early to say for sure, if these Pats continue on this pace, they'll be better than every team I mentioned! I think its comical to even compare the 92 Cowboys to them if they continue on this pace. Can any Cowboys fan provide an actual argument for them even BELONGING IN THE DISCUSSION besides "They were awesome...great o-line!!! Emmitt/Mike/Troy rule!!!!"? Take a look at the stats, records, SOS, everything and please get back to me.Edited to add: I have the 00 Ravens and 92 Cowboys ranked nearly identically, with a very slight edge given to the Ravens for the fact that after Dilfer took over they were much better statistically than the Cowboys(with Dilfer they outscored their opponent's by more than a 3-1 margin....take a look at some other great teams score differential and you'll realize how truly amazing that is). However, I'm not going to debate too much if someone says that they think the Cowboys team was better. However, every other team on my list I feel fairly strongly about that they were better than any Cowboys team, although as I said I greatly respect their longevity and I'd rather have 3 SB wins that one great team that wins one SB.Edited again to add: Just to give you one example of how amazing the Ravens were after Dilfer took over....these Pats, for as dominant as they are, are only outscoring their opponents by a 2.60-1 margin. The Ravens after Dilfer took over, outscored their opponents by a 3.06-1 margin.

My reasoning is very simple. Before the Salary Cap, which was basically put in place because the Cowboys and the 49ers had the league on lock down... dismantled those great teams, and no team will ever be stacked like that again. It is impossible to have all of those great players on the same team, because you could never keep it under cap. Now, the Patriots are a GREAT team, and a great dynasty. However, they are doing in a lesser version of the NFL. The teams are more evenly matched now, because of the salary cap, so you can't have teams LOADED like the Cowboys were. They had great players at every position. Hell, they blew out the Bills who went to the Super Bowl for the AFC 4 years in a row, and had a great team themselves. The Cowboys weren't normally a team that tried to blow teams out of the water on the scoreboard. They controlled the games, with great effecient offense, and great defense. They ran the ball down the other teams throat, and took control of the tempo of the game. The Patriots wouldn't be able to keep Dallas' D on the field all night long, because they wouldn't be shutting down Dallas' offense, themselves. What would happen is, come the 4th quarter, the score may be close... but Dallas' D would be fresh, and Pat's D would be beat down from the running game of the Cowboys, and huge smashmouth offensive line.... and the Boys would take over.Teams LOOK great when they have great coaching, and a very good team like the Pat's have these days... but they are not playing up against uncapped teams of the 90's, who were simply STACKED in all positions. Hell, you even went with the 94' Niners over the Boys, who only made it to the superbowl during Dallas' down year in between their Championships in 92', 93' , and 95'. No way that the Niners were just amazing for that year, and better than any of those Cowboys teams when the Boys won 3 out of those 4 years.If that Cowboys team was around today, with those same players on their team, playing against these salary capped teams of today... they would be cake-walking through them.

Thanks for providing some solid reasoning.It sounds to me as if you're saying that due to the salary cap, there was much less parity in the NFL back then and the best teams are loads better than the worst. However, this begs the question: Then why didn't the Cowboys dominate statistically even more? The Cowboys championship teams only outscored their opponents by 156, 147, and 144 points. By comparison, these Pats have already outscored their opponents by 204 points.But then you go on to say "If that Cowboys team was around today, with those same players on their team, playing against these salary capped teams of today... they would be cake-walking through them.".........this is particularly confusing to me. At first it seemed as if you were arguing that due to not having a salary cap in the early 90s the best teams were amazing while the worst teams were really really poor. Conversely, today the best teams aren't as dominant while the worse teams aren't quite as bad. But with this last sentence, it now seems to me as if you're saying as if the bad teams of today are even worse than the early 90s bad teams. Which is it???In the end, I think you're just giving more biased and illogical arguments here. The Cowboys were simply not that dominant in any one year. Unless you're arguing that football players as a group have gotten worse(which makes pretty much no sense since theres only been better sports medicine and training capabilities now).So let me ask you this...YOu say "dismantled those great teams, and no team will ever be stacked like that again"....If those Cowboys teams were so stacked then why didn't they statistically dominate?

 

[E-A-G-L-E-S]

I don't know about best offense... but the 1992-1993 Cowboys would beat the Patriots. Better defense, and Pats D wouldn't be shutting down Emmitt, Aikman, Irving, Nov, ect...

I really don't understand why it seems like Cowboys fans, more than any other team, overrate their past teams. The early 90s Cowboys won 3 Super Bowls, so they definitely get points for longevity....and trust me- that is important. I'd much rather have 3 SBs than one amazing team like the mid 80s Bears. So I'm not bashing their success. However, I don't think their best team is anything better than 10th when ranking teams of the past 25 or so years.91 Skins, 85 Bears, 89 49ers, 04 Pats, 94 49ers, 96 Packers, 98 Broncos, 86 Giants, 00 Ravens were all better than the best Dallas team in any year(imo 92 was their best year with 93 one step behind, although if Emmitt hadn't held out then it would be even closer, so I won't really argue much either way).While its defintiely too early to say for sure, if these Pats continue on this pace, they'll be better than every team I mentioned! I think its comical to even compare the 92 Cowboys to them if they continue on this pace. Can any Cowboys fan provide an actual argument for them even BELONGING IN THE DISCUSSION besides "They were awesome...great o-line!!! Emmitt/Mike/Troy rule!!!!"? Take a look at the stats, records, SOS, everything and please get back to me.Edited to add: I have the 00 Ravens and 92 Cowboys ranked nearly identically, with a very slight edge given to the Ravens for the fact that after Dilfer took over they were much better statistically than the Cowboys(with Dilfer they outscored their opponent's by more than a 3-1 margin....take a look at some other great teams score differential and you'll realize how truly amazing that is). However, I'm not going to debate too much if someone says that they think the Cowboys team was better. However, every other team on my list I feel fairly strongly about that they were better than any Cowboys team, although as I said I greatly respect their longevity and I'd rather have 3 SB wins that one great team that wins one SB.Edited again to add: Just to give you one example of how amazing the Ravens were after Dilfer took over....these Pats, for as dominant as they are, are only outscoring their opponents by a 2.60-1 margin. The Ravens after Dilfer took over, outscored their opponents by a 3.06-1 margin.

I think those Cowboy teams, especially the first 2 SB winners compare favorably with those teams you listed. They were definitely better then the O4 Pats, the 00 Ravens. This coming from someone who hates the Cowboys.

 

[Assani Fisher]

I don't know about best offense... but the 1992-1993 Cowboys would beat the Patriots. Better defense, and Pats D wouldn't be shutting down Emmitt, Aikman, Irving, Nov, ect...

I really don't understand why it seems like Cowboys fans, more than any other team, overrate their past teams. The early 90s Cowboys won 3 Super Bowls, so they definitely get points for longevity....and trust me- that is important. I'd much rather have 3 SBs than one amazing team like the mid 80s Bears. So I'm not bashing their success. However, I don't think their best team is anything better than 10th when ranking teams of the past 25 or so years.91 Skins, 85 Bears, 89 49ers, 04 Pats, 94 49ers, 96 Packers, 98 Broncos, 86 Giants, 00 Ravens were all better than the best Dallas team in any year(imo 92 was their best year with 93 one step behind, although if Emmitt hadn't held out then it would be even closer, so I won't really argue much either way).While its defintiely too early to say for sure, if these Pats continue on this pace, they'll be better than every team I mentioned! I think its comical to even compare the 92 Cowboys to them if they continue on this pace. Can any Cowboys fan provide an actual argument for them even BELONGING IN THE DISCUSSION besides "They were awesome...great o-line!!! Emmitt/Mike/Troy rule!!!!"? Take a look at the stats, records, SOS, everything and please get back to me.Edited to add: I have the 00 Ravens and 92 Cowboys ranked nearly identically, with a very slight edge given to the Ravens for the fact that after Dilfer took over they were much better statistically than the Cowboys(with Dilfer they outscored their opponent's by more than a 3-1 margin....take a look at some other great teams score differential and you'll realize how truly amazing that is). However, I'm not going to debate too much if someone says that they think the Cowboys team was better. However, every other team on my list I feel fairly strongly about that they were better than any Cowboys team, although as I said I greatly respect their longevity and I'd rather have 3 SB wins that one great team that wins one SB.Edited again to add: Just to give you one example of how amazing the Ravens were after Dilfer took over....these Pats, for as dominant as they are, are only outscoring their opponents by a 2.60-1 margin. The Ravens after Dilfer took over, outscored their opponents by a 3.06-1 margin.

I think those Cowboy teams, especially the first 2 SB winners compare favorably with those teams you listed. They were definitely better then the O4 Pats, the 00 Ravens. This coming from someone who hates the Cowboys.

Please look at the stats including the ones I've provided and make an argument.It seems to me that these Cowboys are a classic case of everyone remembering them as better than they really were. Our memories can be selective and decieve us at times. The stats are clear for everyone to see.

 

[Bodysnatcher]

I don't know about best offense... but the 1992-1993 Cowboys would beat the Patriots. Better defense, and Pats D wouldn't be shutting down Emmitt, Aikman, Irving, Nov, ect...

I really don't understand why it seems like Cowboys fans, more than any other team, overrate their past teams. The early 90s Cowboys won 3 Super Bowls, so they definitely get points for longevity....and trust me- that is important. I'd much rather have 3 SBs than one amazing team like the mid 80s Bears. So I'm not bashing their success. However, I don't think their best team is anything better than 10th when ranking teams of the past 25 or so years.91 Skins, 85 Bears, 89 49ers, 04 Pats, 94 49ers, 96 Packers, 98 Broncos, 86 Giants, 00 Ravens were all better than the best Dallas team in any year(imo 92 was their best year with 93 one step behind, although if Emmitt hadn't held out then it would be even closer, so I won't really argue much either way).While its defintiely too early to say for sure, if these Pats continue on this pace, they'll be better than every team I mentioned! I think its comical to even compare the 92 Cowboys to them if they continue on this pace. Can any Cowboys fan provide an actual argument for them even BELONGING IN THE DISCUSSION besides "They were awesome...great o-line!!! Emmitt/Mike/Troy rule!!!!"? Take a look at the stats, records, SOS, everything and please get back to me.Edited to add: I have the 00 Ravens and 92 Cowboys ranked nearly identically, with a very slight edge given to the Ravens for the fact that after Dilfer took over they were much better statistically than the Cowboys(with Dilfer they outscored their opponent's by more than a 3-1 margin....take a look at some other great teams score differential and you'll realize how truly amazing that is). However, I'm not going to debate too much if someone says that they think the Cowboys team was better. However, every other team on my list I feel fairly strongly about that they were better than any Cowboys team, although as I said I greatly respect their longevity and I'd rather have 3 SB wins that one great team that wins one SB.Edited again to add: Just to give you one example of how amazing the Ravens were after Dilfer took over....these Pats, for as dominant as they are, are only outscoring their opponents by a 2.60-1 margin. The Ravens after Dilfer took over, outscored their opponents by a 3.06-1 margin.

My reasoning is very simple. Before the Salary Cap, which was basically put in place because the Cowboys and the 49ers had the league on lock down... dismantled those great teams, and no team will ever be stacked like that again. It is impossible to have all of those great players on the same team, because you could never keep it under cap. Now, the Patriots are a GREAT team, and a great dynasty. However, they are doing in a lesser version of the NFL. The teams are more evenly matched now, because of the salary cap, so you can't have teams LOADED like the Cowboys were. They had great players at every position. Hell, they blew out the Bills who went to the Super Bowl for the AFC 4 years in a row, and had a great team themselves. The Cowboys weren't normally a team that tried to blow teams out of the water on the scoreboard. They controlled the games, with great effecient offense, and great defense. They ran the ball down the other teams throat, and took control of the tempo of the game. The Patriots wouldn't be able to keep Dallas' D on the field all night long, because they wouldn't be shutting down Dallas' offense, themselves. What would happen is, come the 4th quarter, the score may be close... but Dallas' D would be fresh, and Pat's D would be beat down from the running game of the Cowboys, and huge smashmouth offensive line.... and the Boys would take over.Teams LOOK great when they have great coaching, and a very good team like the Pat's have these days... but they are not playing up against uncapped teams of the 90's, who were simply STACKED in all positions. Hell, you even went with the 94' Niners over the Boys, who only made it to the superbowl during Dallas' down year in between their Championships in 92', 93' , and 95'. No way that the Niners were just amazing for that year, and better than any of those Cowboys teams when the Boys won 3 out of those 4 years.If that Cowboys team was around today, with those same players on their team, playing against these salary capped teams of today... they would be cake-walking through them.

Thanks for providing some solid reasoning.It sounds to me as if you're saying that due to the salary cap, there was much less parity in the NFL back then and the best teams are loads better than the worst. However, this begs the question: Then why didn't the Cowboys dominate statistically even more? The Cowboys championship teams only outscored their opponents by 156, 147, and 144 points. By comparison, these Pats have already outscored their opponents by 204 points.But then you go on to say "If that Cowboys team was around today, with those same players on their team, playing against these salary capped teams of today... they would be cake-walking through them.".........this is particularly confusing to me. At first it seemed as if you were arguing that due to not having a salary cap in the early 90s the best teams were amazing while the worst teams were really really poor. Conversely, today the best teams aren't as dominant while the worse teams aren't quite as bad. But with this last sentence, it now seems to me as if you're saying as if the bad teams of today are even worse than the early 90s bad teams. Which is it???In the end, I think you're just giving more biased and illogical arguments here. The Cowboys were simply not that dominant in any one year. Unless you're arguing that football players as a group have gotten worse(which makes pretty much no sense since theres only been better sports medicine and training capabilities now).So let me ask you this...YOu say "dismantled those great teams, and no team will ever be stacked like that again"....If those Cowboys teams were so stacked then why didn't they statistically dominate?

What do you mean? Stats only show so much. Being a dominant team, doesn't mean that you blow everyone out of the water. That simply wasn't their style. I can't see how you can be much more dominant than winning 3 super bowls, in 4 years. Unless of course you went 4 for 4. Isn't that what it's all about? Everything in football doesn't come down to points differential. It is all about what your style is. The Cowboys had one of the greatest running backs in history. Which is why the man who lead that team from the running back position is the leading running back in history for attempts, yards, and touchdowns. Troy Aikman won more games in the 90's than any quarterback in any decade, EVER. Those stats aren't enough? Now, onto the confusion about Salary caps.... you took me the wrong way. First of all... the Cowboys did easily beat the lesser teams of their era, and any losses came against the tougher teams during an era of uncapped stacked teams. Today, there would be NO teams stacked as they were in all positions, and they would run the house on them. That is what I was talking about. Back then, at least you had the 49ers who were also stacked, and so forth... Nowadays, every team is watered down in certain positions. It isn't possible to have great players at every position, because you don't have enough money under the cap to aquire them. Troy Aikman was a GREAT QB, who never had to put up amazing numbers, because he was so damn effecient at what he did, and he had a great running back who controlled the games as well. Tom Brady is a great QB, who has to completely dominant in games because his running backs are nothing even close to being anywhere in the same league as Emmitt. The Patriots can't pound the ball in with running backs for NOTHING. What happens when you have a great secondary who gets even tougher down in the red zone, on the short field... and you are FORCED to pound the ball in? That is what happened back in the day, when teams were amazing like the Cowboys were. Can you see the same guys going uncovered into the endzone like you see every week against the Pats during short yardage? Nope... simply wouldn't happen.I will add later... have to go...

 

[Tau837]

Here's a comparison of past "great offenses" and I'm aware that I probably neglected some. The numbers have been round up/down to whole to make it easier. Granted, the Pats have played an easy schedule even w/SD and Washington but they compare favorably to past great offenses in all categories (although a little weak in RYPG). The only difference is that they are 'running up the score' on their opponents but even if that goes down, they'll still be in the 30+ range just like SF, Minnesota, and St. Louis.1983 Washington Redskins: 34 PPG - 235 PYPG - 164 RYPG - 399 YPG1984 Miami Dolphins: 32 PPG - 322 PYPG - 120 RYPG - 442 YPG1984 San Francisco 49ers: 30 PPG - 255 PYPG - 154 RYPG - 409 YPG1989 San Francisco 49ers: 28 PPG - 287 PYPG - 123 RYPG - 409 YPG1991 Washington Redskins: 30 PPG - 236 PYPG - 128 RYPG - 364 YPG1992 Dallas Cowboys: 26 PPG - 225 PYPG - 133 RYPG - 357 YPG1993 Dallas Cowboys: 24 PPG - 226 PYPG - 135 RYPG - 361 YPG1994 San Francisco 49ers: 32 PPG - 273 PYPG - 119 RYPG - 391 YPG1995 Dallas Cowboys: 27 PPG - 234 PYPG - 138 RYPG - 371 YPG1998 Minnesota Vikings: 35 PPG - 281 PYPG - 121 RYPG - 402 YPG1998 Denver Broncos: 30 PPG - 238 PYPG - 154 RYPG - 392 YPG1999 St. Louis Rams: 33 PPG - 286 PYPG - 129 RYPG - 415 YPG2001 St. Louis Rams: 31 PPG - 306 PYPG - 127 RYPG - 433 YPG2004 Indianapolis Colts: 33 PPG - 296 PYPG - 116 RYPG - 412 YPG2007 New England Patriots: 41 PPG - 268 PYPG - 117 RYPG - 384 YPG

Were there no great offenses before 1983?

 

[Tau837]

Brady is demolishing the pedestal that Montana sits on in NFL history.

 

[Tau837]

I don't know about best offense... but the 1992-1993 Cowboys would beat the Patriots. Better defense, and Pats D wouldn't be shutting down Emmitt, Aikman, Irving, Nov, ect...

I really don't understand why it seems like Cowboys fans, more than any other team, overrate their past teams. The early 90s Cowboys won 3 Super Bowls, so they definitely get points for longevity....and trust me- that is important. I'd much rather have 3 SBs than one amazing team like the mid 80s Bears. So I'm not bashing their success. However, I don't think their best team is anything better than 10th when ranking teams of the past 25 or so years.91 Skins, 85 Bears, 89 49ers, 04 Pats, 94 49ers, 96 Packers, 98 Broncos, 86 Giants, 00 Ravens were all better than the best Dallas team in any year(imo 92 was their best year with 93 one step behind, although if Emmitt hadn't held out then it would be even closer, so I won't really argue much either way).While its defintiely too early to say for sure, if these Pats continue on this pace, they'll be better than every team I mentioned! I think its comical to even compare the 92 Cowboys to them if they continue on this pace. Can any Cowboys fan provide an actual argument for them even BELONGING IN THE DISCUSSION besides "They were awesome...great o-line!!! Emmitt/Mike/Troy rule!!!!"? Take a look at the stats, records, SOS, everything and please get back to me.Edited to add: I have the 00 Ravens and 92 Cowboys ranked nearly identically, with a very slight edge given to the Ravens for the fact that after Dilfer took over they were much better statistically than the Cowboys(with Dilfer they outscored their opponent's by more than a 3-1 margin....take a look at some other great teams score differential and you'll realize how truly amazing that is). However, I'm not going to debate too much if someone says that they think the Cowboys team was better. However, every other team on my list I feel fairly strongly about that they were better than any Cowboys team, although as I said I greatly respect their longevity and I'd rather have 3 SB wins that one great team that wins one SB.Edited again to add: Just to give you one example of how amazing the Ravens were after Dilfer took over....these Pats, for as dominant as they are, are only outscoring their opponents by a 2.60-1 margin. The Ravens after Dilfer took over, outscored their opponents by a 3.06-1 margin.

I think those Cowboy teams, especially the first 2 SB winners compare favorably with those teams you listed. They were definitely better then the O4 Pats, the 00 Ravens. This coming from someone who hates the Cowboys.

Please look at the stats including the ones I've provided and make an argument.It seems to me that these Cowboys are a classic case of everyone remembering them as better than they really were. Our memories can be selective and decieve us at times. The stats are clear for everyone to see.

It's not all about the stats.

 

[Phurfur]

I can name at least ten teams I would take over the current pats.



What teams do you think were better then the 2007 Patriots?

Actually the 98 Broncos were only the second best offense that YEAR. The Vikings were #1.

 

[Assani Fisher]

What do you mean? Stats only show so much. Being a dominant team, doesn't mean that you blow everyone out of the water. That simply wasn't their style. I can't see how you can be much more dominant than winning 3 super bowls, in 4 years. Unless of course you went 4 for 4. Isn't that what it's all about? Everything in football doesn't come down to points differential. It is all about what your style is. The Cowboys had one of the greatest running backs in history. Which is why the man who lead that team from the running back position is the leading running back in history for attempts, yards, and touchdowns. Troy Aikman won more games in the 90's than any quarterback in any decade, EVER. Those stats aren't enough? Now, onto the confusion about Salary caps.... you took me the wrong way. First of all... the Cowboys did easily beat the lesser teams of their era, and any losses came against the tougher teams during an era of uncapped stacked teams. Today, there would be NO teams stacked as they were in all positions, and they would run the house on them. That is what I was talking about. Back then, at least you had the 49ers who were also stacked, and so forth... Nowadays, every team is watered down in certain positions. It isn't possible to have great players at every position, because you don't have enough money under the cap to aquire them. Troy Aikman was a GREAT QB, who never had to put up amazing numbers, because he was so damn effecient at what he did, and he had a great running back who controlled the games as well. Tom Brady is a great QB, who has to completely dominant in games because his running backs are nothing even close to being anywhere in the same league as Emmitt. The Patriots can't pound the ball in with running backs for NOTHING. What happens when you have a great secondary who gets even tougher down in the red zone, on the short field... and you are FORCED to pound the ball in? That is what happened back in the day, when teams were amazing like the Cowboys were. Can you see the same guys going uncovered into the endzone like you see every week against the Pats during short yardage? Nope... simply wouldn't happen.I will add later... have to go...

I disagree with your general point of teams not being stacked anymore. I think that these Colts and Pats are head and shoulders above everyone else right now, just as much as the Cowboys and 49ers were. I also very much disagree with you that the Pats can't run the ball. FWIW, both the 92 Cowboys and the 07 Pats have 4.2 yards per rush.Dude, you're way being a homer by claiming that the Cowboys didn't blow out teams simply because it "wasn't their style." I understand that point differntial isn't everything. For example if a great offensive team is up 35-28 and tacks on 2 late TDs and wins 49-28, they outscored their opponents by 21 points. Then you could have a great defensive team that plays safe on offense totally shut down a team and win 20-0 with the other team never even sniffing the end zone....obviously the second example is more dominance than the first despite winning by less. I understand that there are cases like this.However, when the stats are so lopsided, then it just makes it silly to argue that the stats are misleading. The Cowboys lost a game 31-7 that year!!! Are you telling me that they lost a game by 24 points simply because that was "their style"? They also were beaten by a 6-10 L.A. Rams team....again just must've been their style to do things like that, right? The greatest teams of all time don't get blown out and they don't lose to 6-10 teams. The stats are not misleading there.Moreover, its not a "style" to win games 34-28, 31-27, or 16-10(btw, their opponents records in those 3 games were 8-8, 6-10, and 4-12 so it wasn't like they were playing good teams). To win that closely means that it was A CLOSE GAME THAT YOU BARELY WON. Are you really telling me that the Cowboys could've blown those teams out if they wanted but didn't because it didn't fit their style?This really isn't even remotely close. The 1992 Cowboys are a middle of the road Super Bowl winner. These Pats might be the greatest team of all time.

 

[hofer]

However you want to define this I think you have to toss out total points. The Pats are clearly running up the scores. I don't believe I have ever seen a team do this so consistently and blatantly.

But at the same time, they are easing back and playing their 2nd (and 3rd) stringers in the 4th quarter. So yeah, they're running up the score -- with Cassel and Eckel.

With that in mind, you shouldn't be dismissing "total points" so quickly. Just think how many points they're leaving on the field. If they had played Brady/Moss/Welker/Stallworth/Maroney full-out for 4 quarters, they would have put up 70 points on Washington. Easily.

And that's what makes them the best offensive team in modern history.

The Pats points in the 1st half of games this year:24

42

21

20

17

17

24

14

179 total, which comes out to 22.375 per half, which comes out to 44.75 per game.

I'd be interested in someone doing this analysis for the other great offenses.

I did the total for the '98 broncos because I'm a homer and got 18.75 pts per 1st half

 

[Assani Fisher]

I don't know about best offense... but the 1992-1993 Cowboys would beat the Patriots. Better defense, and Pats D wouldn't be shutting down Emmitt, Aikman, Irving, Nov, ect...

I really don't understand why it seems like Cowboys fans, more than any other team, overrate their past teams. The early 90s Cowboys won 3 Super Bowls, so they definitely get points for longevity....and trust me- that is important. I'd much rather have 3 SBs than one amazing team like the mid 80s Bears. So I'm not bashing their success. However, I don't think their best team is anything better than 10th when ranking teams of the past 25 or so years.91 Skins, 85 Bears, 89 49ers, 04 Pats, 94 49ers, 96 Packers, 98 Broncos, 86 Giants, 00 Ravens were all better than the best Dallas team in any year(imo 92 was their best year with 93 one step behind, although if Emmitt hadn't held out then it would be even closer, so I won't really argue much either way).While its defintiely too early to say for sure, if these Pats continue on this pace, they'll be better than every team I mentioned! I think its comical to even compare the 92 Cowboys to them if they continue on this pace. Can any Cowboys fan provide an actual argument for them even BELONGING IN THE DISCUSSION besides "They were awesome...great o-line!!! Emmitt/Mike/Troy rule!!!!"? Take a look at the stats, records, SOS, everything and please get back to me.Edited to add: I have the 00 Ravens and 92 Cowboys ranked nearly identically, with a very slight edge given to the Ravens for the fact that after Dilfer took over they were much better statistically than the Cowboys(with Dilfer they outscored their opponent's by more than a 3-1 margin....take a look at some other great teams score differential and you'll realize how truly amazing that is). However, I'm not going to debate too much if someone says that they think the Cowboys team was better. However, every other team on my list I feel fairly strongly about that they were better than any Cowboys team, although as I said I greatly respect their longevity and I'd rather have 3 SB wins that one great team that wins one SB.Edited again to add: Just to give you one example of how amazing the Ravens were after Dilfer took over....these Pats, for as dominant as they are, are only outscoring their opponents by a 2.60-1 margin. The Ravens after Dilfer took over, outscored their opponents by a 3.06-1 margin.

I think those Cowboy teams, especially the first 2 SB winners compare favorably with those teams you listed. They were definitely better then the O4 Pats, the 00 Ravens. This coming from someone who hates the Cowboys.

Please look at the stats including the ones I've provided and make an argument.It seems to me that these Cowboys are a classic case of everyone remembering them as better than they really were. Our memories can be selective and decieve us at times. The stats are clear for everyone to see.

It's not all about the stats.

Stats can indeed be misleading at times. However, when they are you can usually show why. I would love for you to go through every single game the 1992 Cowboys played and determine:1. First off, if they won the game or not2. How close the game really was(as final score can sometimes be misleading)3. If the game was close, was that due to the Cowboy's "style" or due to the fact that it was actually a competitive game that could've gone either way with one or two breaksIf you do this, I think you'll find that the 1992 Cowboys were nowhere near as good as these Pats or anywhere near the top of the list of all time great teams.

 

[Tau837]

I don't know about best offense... but the 1992-1993 Cowboys would beat the Patriots. Better defense, and Pats D wouldn't be shutting down Emmitt, Aikman, Irving, Nov, ect...

I really don't understand why it seems like Cowboys fans, more than any other team, overrate their past teams. The early 90s Cowboys won 3 Super Bowls, so they definitely get points for longevity....and trust me- that is important. I'd much rather have 3 SBs than one amazing team like the mid 80s Bears. So I'm not bashing their success. However, I don't think their best team is anything better than 10th when ranking teams of the past 25 or so years.91 Skins, 85 Bears, 89 49ers, 04 Pats, 94 49ers, 96 Packers, 98 Broncos, 86 Giants, 00 Ravens were all better than the best Dallas team in any year(imo 92 was their best year with 93 one step behind, although if Emmitt hadn't held out then it would be even closer, so I won't really argue much either way).

While its defintiely too early to say for sure, if these Pats continue on this pace, they'll be better than every team I mentioned! I think its comical to even compare the 92 Cowboys to them if they continue on this pace.

Can any Cowboys fan provide an actual argument for them even BELONGING IN THE DISCUSSION besides "They were awesome...great o-line!!! Emmitt/Mike/Troy rule!!!!"? Take a look at the stats, records, SOS, everything and please get back to me.

Edited to add: I have the 00 Ravens and 92 Cowboys ranked nearly identically, with a very slight edge given to the Ravens for the fact that after Dilfer took over they were much better statistically than the Cowboys(with Dilfer they outscored their opponent's by more than a 3-1 margin....take a look at some other great teams score differential and you'll realize how truly amazing that is). However, I'm not going to debate too much if someone says that they think the Cowboys team was better. However, every other team on my list I feel fairly strongly about that they were better than any Cowboys team, although as I said I greatly respect their longevity and I'd rather have 3 SB wins that one great team that wins one SB.

Edited again to add: Just to give you one example of how amazing the Ravens were after Dilfer took over....these Pats, for as dominant as they are, are only outscoring their opponents by a 2.60-1 margin. The Ravens after Dilfer took over, outscored their opponents by a 3.06-1 margin.

I think those Cowboy teams, especially the first 2 SB winners compare favorably with those teams you listed. They were definitely better then the O4 Pats, the 00 Ravens. This coming from someone who hates the Cowboys.

Please look at the stats including the ones I've provided and make an argument.It seems to me that these Cowboys are a classic case of everyone remembering them as better than they really were. Our memories can be selective and decieve us at times. The stats are clear for everyone to see.

It's not all about the stats.

Stats can indeed be misleading at times. However, when they are you can usually show why. I would love for you to go through every single game the 1992 Cowboys played and determine:1. First off, if they won the game or not

2. How close the game really was(as final score can sometimes be misleading)

3. If the game was close, was that due to the Cowboy's "style" or due to the fact that it was actually a competitive game that could've gone either way with one or two breaks

If you do this, I think you'll find that the 1992 Cowboys were nowhere near as good as these Pats or anywhere near the top of the list of all time great teams.

I don't have time to do this, though I'd also be interested in the results. My point isn't only related to these Cowboys, but more generally that there are other offenses that may have been better despite not looking better statistically. With regard to your bolded statement, I just want to point out that we're discussing offense only here, not whole team.

 

[Jason Wood]

I don't see how the '92 Cowboys are even in the conversation, particularly if you can't include defense as part of the debate. The Boys were 7th in passing yards, 5th in rushing yards, 4th in total yards and 2nd in points scored that year; they weren't even elite/the best that season; how can anyone contend that offense was comparable to what the Pats are doing in '07 or what the Rams did in '00?

 

[redman]

Here's a comparison of past "great offenses" and I'm aware that I probably neglected some. The numbers have been round up/down to whole to make it easier. Granted, the Pats have played an easy schedule even w/SD and Washington but they compare favorably to past great offenses in all categories (although a little weak in RYPG). The only difference is that they are 'running up the score' on their opponents but even if that goes down, they'll still be in the 30+ range just like SF, Minnesota, and St. Louis.1983 Washington Redskins: 34 PPG - 235 PYPG - 164 RYPG - 399 YPG1984 Miami Dolphins: 32 PPG - 322 PYPG - 120 RYPG - 442 YPG1984 San Francisco 49ers: 30 PPG - 255 PYPG - 154 RYPG - 409 YPG1989 San Francisco 49ers: 28 PPG - 287 PYPG - 123 RYPG - 409 YPG1991 Washington Redskins: 30 PPG - 236 PYPG - 128 RYPG - 364 YPG1992 Dallas Cowboys: 26 PPG - 225 PYPG - 133 RYPG - 357 YPG1993 Dallas Cowboys: 24 PPG - 226 PYPG - 135 RYPG - 361 YPG1994 San Francisco 49ers: 32 PPG - 273 PYPG - 119 RYPG - 391 YPG1995 Dallas Cowboys: 27 PPG - 234 PYPG - 138 RYPG - 371 YPG1998 Minnesota Vikings: 35 PPG - 281 PYPG - 121 RYPG - 402 YPG1998 Denver Broncos: 30 PPG - 238 PYPG - 154 RYPG - 392 YPG1999 St. Louis Rams: 33 PPG - 286 PYPG - 129 RYPG - 415 YPG2001 St. Louis Rams: 31 PPG - 306 PYPG - 127 RYPG - 433 YPG2004 Indianapolis Colts: 33 PPG - 296 PYPG - 116 RYPG - 412 YPG2007 New England Patriots: 41 PPG - 268 PYPG - 117 RYPG - 384 YPG

Were there no great offenses before 1983?

Of course there were, but "great" was defined a bit differently, not to mention that 1978 was the first season with 16 games played. They were different times.

 

[Routilla]

So basically you're saying that you're a homer and completely unwilling to change your view no matter how much statistical evidence points against it? Fair enough.I will ask you what exactly you mean by "hitting on all cylinders heading into the playoffs"? Actually I do know what you mean- you're looking for an excuse as to why Dallas doesn't match up stats wise with the Redskins and you're attempting to say that by the end of the season Dallas was playing better. Unfortunately, thats untrue as well....Week 14: Dallas plays a Denver team that finished 8-8. They eek out a 31-27 win.Week 15: Dallas loses to Washington, who finished 9-7 that yearWeek 16: Dallas kills the 6-10 Falcons 41-17.Week 17: Dallas beats a 6-10 Falcons team 27-14So they barely beat a .500 team, lose to a 9-7 team(a team that would've been .500 had Dallas won that game), and soundly beat two 6-10 teams.....thats "firing on all cylinders"? You are biased indeed.

I remember them mangling a very good 49ers team in SF(Young, Rice etc.) and then crushing a very good BUF team(Kelly, Thomas, Reed etc.) in a year they were not supposed to reach the NFC championship game. I'm not concerned with the last few regular season games. The point is no one could touch them when it mattered most. Keep your stats, they are not the end all of how good or bad a team is/was. Perhaps I am a little biased but that doesn't change anything. You have the right to your opinion and I'll not tell you what you should think, with or without stats in an attempt to sway you. I have always said these comparisons are irrelevant from year to year, especially when you factor in conference strength, division strength, rule changes etc. not to mention a team's performance in the big game itself. It cannot be accurately assessed and all the stats in the world will not tell you if Team A would beat Team B. It's just not possible.

 

[SharkBait]

Sorrry, this comes from a true Pats hater, as many of you know- but this is the greatest offense ever, at least after 8 games. Only the 89 49ers approach it, and they were IMO the greatest team ever- until now...

This works for me. It's not just the "running up of the score". It's that this team just scores when it wants to.They're 8-0 against the spread. The World Champs are undefeated and are a 5 point dog at home to this team. That's incredible.

 

[Assani Fisher]

I don't see how the '92 Cowboys are even in the conversation, particularly if you can't include defense as part of the debate. The Boys were 7th in passing yards, 5th in rushing yards, 4th in total yards and 2nd in points scored that year; they weren't even elite/the best that season; how can anyone contend that offense was comparable to what the Pats are doing in '07 or what the Rams did in '00?

agreed completely

 

[Assani Fisher]

They were hitting on all cylinders heading into the playoffs that year.

Week 14: Dallas plays a Denver team that finished 8-8. They eek out a 31-27 win.Week 15: Dallas loses to Washington, who finished 9-7 that yearWeek 16: Dallas kills the 6-10 Falcons 41-17.Week 17: Dallas beats a 6-10 Falcons team 27-14

I'm not concerned with the last few regular season games. The point is no one could touch them when it mattered most.

Interesting series of posts here.

 

[Routilla]

Of course there were, but "great" was defined a bit differently, not to mention that 1978 was the first season with 16 games played. They were different times.

This is probably the best summary of all this who's best talk. I am not impressed with very many teams today. Salaries are a determinant that goes unmeasured. I think a lot of the teams in years past were more concerned and geared towards winning. Divisional match-ups were brutal. So naturally I think those teams were better than today's teams. I think of the NFC East during the 80's and early 90's and feel fortunate Dallas won those SBs. WAS and the NYG had some nasty teams during that stretch and as a result the AFC rep usually got dismantled in the big game. NE has no real competition at this point, especially in their division. It doesn't make them "not good" but I just don't see the same level of commitment around the league. Perhaps it would not matter, but we will never know because teams of different seasons cannot play each other in the same time and space.

 

[Routilla]

They were hitting on all cylinders heading into the playoffs that year.

Week 14: Dallas plays a Denver team that finished 8-8. They eek out a 31-27 win.

Week 15: Dallas loses to Washington, who finished 9-7 that year

Week 16: Dallas kills the 6-10 Falcons 41-17.

Week 17: Dallas beats a 6-10 Falcons team 27-14

I'm not concerned with the last few regular season games. The point is no one could touch them when it mattered most.

Interesting series of posts here.

Pardon. I should have said Super Bowl instead of playoffs. That one's on me.

 

[Tau837]

Here's a comparison of past "great offenses" and I'm aware that I probably neglected some. The numbers have been round up/down to whole to make it easier. Granted, the Pats have played an easy schedule even w/SD and Washington but they compare favorably to past great offenses in all categories (although a little weak in RYPG). The only difference is that they are 'running up the score' on their opponents but even if that goes down, they'll still be in the 30+ range just like SF, Minnesota, and St. Louis.1983 Washington Redskins: 34 PPG - 235 PYPG - 164 RYPG - 399 YPG1984 Miami Dolphins: 32 PPG - 322 PYPG - 120 RYPG - 442 YPG1984 San Francisco 49ers: 30 PPG - 255 PYPG - 154 RYPG - 409 YPG1989 San Francisco 49ers: 28 PPG - 287 PYPG - 123 RYPG - 409 YPG1991 Washington Redskins: 30 PPG - 236 PYPG - 128 RYPG - 364 YPG1992 Dallas Cowboys: 26 PPG - 225 PYPG - 133 RYPG - 357 YPG1993 Dallas Cowboys: 24 PPG - 226 PYPG - 135 RYPG - 361 YPG1994 San Francisco 49ers: 32 PPG - 273 PYPG - 119 RYPG - 391 YPG1995 Dallas Cowboys: 27 PPG - 234 PYPG - 138 RYPG - 371 YPG1998 Minnesota Vikings: 35 PPG - 281 PYPG - 121 RYPG - 402 YPG1998 Denver Broncos: 30 PPG - 238 PYPG - 154 RYPG - 392 YPG1999 St. Louis Rams: 33 PPG - 286 PYPG - 129 RYPG - 415 YPG2001 St. Louis Rams: 31 PPG - 306 PYPG - 127 RYPG - 433 YPG2004 Indianapolis Colts: 33 PPG - 296 PYPG - 116 RYPG - 412 YPG2007 New England Patriots: 41 PPG - 268 PYPG - 117 RYPG - 384 YPG

Were there no great offenses before 1983?

Of course there were, but "great" was defined a bit differently, not to mention that 1978 was the first season with 16 games played. They were different times.

Sorry if it wasn't clear... that was sarcasm. My point was exactly that the quoted post completely ignored whatever great offenses existed more than 25 years ago.

 

[redman]

Of course there were, but "great" was defined a bit differently, not to mention that 1978 was the first season with 16 games played. They were different times.

This is probably the best summary of all this who's best talk. I am not impressed with very many teams today. Salaries are a determinant that goes unmeasured. I think a lot of the teams in years past were more concerned and geared towards winning. Divisional match-ups were brutal. So naturally I think those teams were better than today's teams. I think of the NFC East during the 80's and early 90's and feel fortunate Dallas won those SBs. WAS and the NYG had some nasty teams during that stretch and as a result the AFC rep usually got dismantled in the big game. NE has no real competition at this point, especially in their division. It doesn't make them "not good" but I just don't see the same level of commitment around the league. Perhaps it would not matter, but we will never know because teams of different seasons cannot play each other in the same time and space.

FA and the salary cap are big levellers, as they allow bottom teams to move up more quickly and they tend to strip the parts from the best teams to go elsewhere. It wasn't easier to reach the elite level in those days you mentioned, but once you got there it was easier to maintain it IMHO because teams like the Redskins could keep an entire o-line together for over a decade, the Giants could keep their defense intact, etc.

I remember Bill Walsh in an interview from the 80's saying that every year in training camp he'd look around the league to get a read on his team's prospects, and inevitably he'd really be taking stock of Parcells' Giants, Gibbs' Redskins, and Ditka's Bears teams.

 

[redman]

Here's a comparison of past "great offenses" and I'm aware that I probably neglected some. The numbers have been round up/down to whole to make it easier. Granted, the Pats have played an easy schedule even w/SD and Washington but they compare favorably to past great offenses in all categories (although a little weak in RYPG). The only difference is that they are 'running up the score' on their opponents but even if that goes down, they'll still be in the 30+ range just like SF, Minnesota, and St. Louis.1983 Washington Redskins: 34 PPG - 235 PYPG - 164 RYPG - 399 YPG1984 Miami Dolphins: 32 PPG - 322 PYPG - 120 RYPG - 442 YPG1984 San Francisco 49ers: 30 PPG - 255 PYPG - 154 RYPG - 409 YPG1989 San Francisco 49ers: 28 PPG - 287 PYPG - 123 RYPG - 409 YPG1991 Washington Redskins: 30 PPG - 236 PYPG - 128 RYPG - 364 YPG1992 Dallas Cowboys: 26 PPG - 225 PYPG - 133 RYPG - 357 YPG1993 Dallas Cowboys: 24 PPG - 226 PYPG - 135 RYPG - 361 YPG1994 San Francisco 49ers: 32 PPG - 273 PYPG - 119 RYPG - 391 YPG1995 Dallas Cowboys: 27 PPG - 234 PYPG - 138 RYPG - 371 YPG1998 Minnesota Vikings: 35 PPG - 281 PYPG - 121 RYPG - 402 YPG1998 Denver Broncos: 30 PPG - 238 PYPG - 154 RYPG - 392 YPG1999 St. Louis Rams: 33 PPG - 286 PYPG - 129 RYPG - 415 YPG2001 St. Louis Rams: 31 PPG - 306 PYPG - 127 RYPG - 433 YPG2004 Indianapolis Colts: 33 PPG - 296 PYPG - 116 RYPG - 412 YPG2007 New England Patriots: 41 PPG - 268 PYPG - 117 RYPG - 384 YPG

Were there no great offenses before 1983?

Of course there were, but "great" was defined a bit differently, not to mention that 1978 was the first season with 16 games played. They were different times.

Sorry if it wasn't clear... that was sarcasm. My point was exactly that the quoted post completely ignored whatever great offenses existed more than 25 years ago.

Sarcastic or not, it led to a valid point. The discussion has largely been stats oriented, and the stats started increasing dramatically in the early 80's.

 

[Bodysnatcher]

I don't see how the '92 Cowboys are even in the conversation, particularly if you can't include defense as part of the debate. The Boys were 7th in passing yards, 5th in rushing yards, 4th in total yards and 2nd in points scored that year; they weren't even elite/the best that season; how can anyone contend that offense was comparable to what the Pats are doing in '07 or what the Rams did in '00?

I am amazed by how much you guys use stats as a way of judging every team. First of all, the Cowboys this year were the most powerful offense in the NFL through the first 5 games. Why weren't we on here saying that they were the most powerful offense of all time? For the love of God, we are only halfway into the season. Also, certain teams simply don't play for offensive stats. I was talking about the 92' Cowboys, and I wasn't talking about just offense. I was talking about the team overall. Patriots Defense isn't on the 92' Cowboys level. In other words... the difference in the 92' Cowboys offense vs the Patriots defense is greater than the difference between the Pats offense vs the 92' Cowboy's defense. I could easily see the 92' Cowboys pound Emmitt down their throat for the entire game, and that big O line wear NE's D out, having their way with them in the 4th Quarter. Where the Cowboys D would be fresh, because they wouldn't be on the field all day like teams are now. So, the Pats Offense wouldn't be having their way with the Cowboys D. Also, there isn't a person in that secondary that could have covered Michael Irvin. They give up a lot of short yardage stuff over the middle, and Irvin and Novi would ate them up all day.

 

[{Syrus}]

Best team ? Easy.....'95 Cowboys.

 

[MogusMaximus]

I can name at least ten teams I would take over the current pats.



What teams do you think were better then the 2007 Patriots?

Actually the 98 Broncos were only the second best offense that YEAR. The Vikings were #1.

Statistically perhaps. However, I'd take Terrell Davis and that O-line over any other in league history. 98' Broncos would beat the 07' Patriots

 

[DawnBTVS]

For Just Win Baby, here ya go... teams from 1950 - 1983. Note that most of the 1970's had low scoring league wide and the teams I'm focusing on primarily scored a lot of points as well as averaged a high yard per game on offense.

1950 Los Angeles Rams: 39 PPG - 300 PYPG - 103 RYPG - 403 YPG

1958 Baltimore Colts: 32 PPG - 212 PYPG - 162 RYPG - 374 YPG

1959 Baltimore Colts: 31 PPG - 242 PYPG - 142 RYPG - 384 YPG

1961 Houston Oilers: 37 PPG - 324 PYPG - 135 RYPG - 459 YPG I had no idea they were this good offensively... damn!

1963 New York Giants: 32 PPG - 253 PYPG - 127 RYPG - 380 YPG

1966 Dallas Cowboys: 32 PPG - 235 PYPG - 146 RYPG - 381 YPG

1966 Kansas City Chiefs: 32 PPG - 222 PYPG - 162 RYPG - 384 YPG

1967 Oakland Raiders: 33 PPG - 251 PYPG - 138 RYPG - 389 YPG

1968 Oakland Raiders: 32 PPG - 269 PYPG - 152 RYPG - 421 YPG

1976 Baltimore Colts: 30 PPG - 230 PYPG - 165 RYPG - 395 YPG

1979 Pittsburgh Steelers: 26 PPG - 242 PYPG - 163 RYPG - 405 YPG

1980 Dallas Cowboys: 28 PPG - 210 PYPG - 149 RYPG - 359 YPG

1981 San Diego Chargers: 30 PPG - 305 PYPG - 125 RYPG - 430 YPG