SI's Top 10 Offenses (1 Viewer)

[BlueOnion]

Link

10 Dallas Cowboys 1992

09 Green Bay Packers 1996

08 Denver Broncos 1998

07 Miami Dolpins 1984

06 San Diego Chargers 1981

05 Minnesota Vikings 1998

04 Washington Redskins 1983

03 Indianapolis Colts 2004

02 St. Louis Rams 1999

01 San Francisco 49ers 1994

Edited - My personal notables left off the list; Bills early 90s, Houston Oilers of early 90s, Chiefs of early 2000s.

 

[IndyHavoc]

Phew, thought they were putting the 04 Colts and '99 Rams at the bottom of the top 10 there, but it was just my reading comprehension problem cropping up again!

I'd say I really like the top 4, but after that I think you could make an argument to really shuffle them around a bit. Nice link though, thanks.

 

[radballs]

I can't stand the Niners but the '88 or '89 team should have easily made this list as well.

 

[Bankerguy]

The fact that the 1992 Cowboys are only 10th is a joke.

One of the best O-lines in the history of the game.

The all time rushing leader.

Michael Irvin

Jay Novacek

Oh and some hall of fame QB named Troy Aikman.

 

[Ghost Rider]

I can't stand the Niners but the '88 or '89 team should have easily made this list as well.

Obviously, they were picking the best year by those franchises, otherwise, the '00 Rams and '01 Rams, for example, probably would have been on there, too.

The fact that the 1992 Cowboys are only 10th is a joke.

One of the best O-lines in the history of the game.

The all time rushing leader.

Michael Irvin

Jay Novacek

Oh and some hall of fame QB named Troy Aikman.

Great offense, yes, but where did they finish in total offense that year and how many points did they score? Answer: They were 2nd in points scored and 4th in total yardage. That is hardly great enough to warrant being higher than 10th on this list, especially when you consider that no other team from '92 is on this list.

 

[Ghost Rider]

For fun, I looked these up:

1. '94 49ers - 505 points scored (team won the Super Bowl)

2. '99 Rams - 526 points scored (team won the Super Bowl)

3. '04 Colts - 522 points scored

4. '83 Redskins - 541 points scored

5. '98 Vikings - 556 points scored

6. '81 Chargers - 478 points scored

7. '84 Dolphins - 513 points scored

8. '98 Broncos - 501 points scored (team won the Super Bowl)

9. '96 Packers - 456 points scored (team won the Super Bowl)

10. '92 Cowboys - 409 points scored (team won the Super Bowl)

Given that, the '92 Cowboys were lucky to even make this list, so saying they should be higher is ludicrous.

 

[Pipes]

For fun, I looked these up:

1. '94 49ers - 505 points scored (team won the Super Bowl)

2. '99 Rams - 526 points scored (team won the Super Bowl)

3. '04 Colts - 522 points scored

4. '83 Redskins - 541 points scored

5. '98 Vikings - 556 points scored

6. '81 Chargers - 478 points scored

7. '84 Dolphins - 513 points scored

8. '98 Broncos - 501 points scored (team won the Super Bowl)

9. '96 Packers - 456 points scored (team won the Super Bowl)

10. '92 Cowboys - 409 points scored (team won the Super Bowl)

Given that, the '92 Cowboys were lucky to even make this list, so saying they should be higher is ludicrous.

Come on now don't let the facts get in the way of a good arguement.

 

[Ghost Rider]

To take it a little further...

The '92 Cowboys scored over 30 points in 6 of their 16 regular season games.

The '96 Packers scored over 30 points in 8 of their 16 regualr season games.

The '98 Broncos scored over 30 points in 10 of their 16 regular season games.

The '84 Dolphins scored over 30 points in 9 of their 16 regular season games.

The '81 Charger scored over 30 poins in 6 of their 16 regular season games.

The '98 Vikings scored over 30 points in 11 of their 16 regular season games.

The '83 Redkins scored over 30 points in 11 of their 16 regular season games.

The '04 Colts scored over 30 points in 10 of their 16 regular season games.

The '99 Rams scored over 30 points in 12 of their 16 regular season games.

The '94 49ers scored over 30 points in 10 of their 16 regular season games.

 

[On The Rocks]

The fact that the 1992 Cowboys are only 10th is a joke.

One of the best O-lines in the history of the game.

The all time rushing leader.

Michael Irvin

Jay Novacek

Oh and some hall of fame QB named Troy Aikman.

To take it a little further...

The '92 Cowboys scored over 30 points in 6 of their 16 regular season games.

The '96 Packers scored over 30 points in 8 of their 16 regualr season games.

The '98 Broncos scored over 30 points in 10 of their 16 regular season games.

The '84 Dolphins scored over 30 points in 9 of their 16 regular season games.

The '81 Charger scored over 30 poins in 6 of their 16 regular season games.

The '98 Vikings scored over 30 points in 11 of their 16 regular season games.

The '83 Redkins scored over 30 points in 11 of their 16 regular season games.

The '04 Colts scored over 30 points in 10 of their 16 regular season games.

The '99 Rams scored over 30 points in 12 of their 16 regular season games.

The '94 49ers scored over 30 points in 10 of their 16 regular season games.

1. '94 49ers - 505 points scored (team won the Super Bowl)

2. '99 Rams - 526 points scored (team won the Super Bowl)

3. '04 Colts - 522 points scored

4. '83 Redskins - 541 points scored

5. '98 Vikings - 556 points scored

6. '81 Chargers - 478 points scored

7. '84 Dolphins - 513 points scored

8. '98 Broncos - 501 points scored (team won the Super Bowl)

9. '96 Packers - 456 points scored (team won the Super Bowl)

10. '92 Cowboys - 409 points scored (team won the Super Bowl)

why would you want to go and spoil the fun for Cowboys fans by quoting facts?

 

[Loopdog]

i'd worry more about winning the superbowl than i would scoring the most points

im sure the 04 Colts and 98 Vikings would agree with me along with the others from 3-7

 

[Borat]

I'd put the early 90s Bills in there ahead of the Cowboys.

 

[djcolts]

For fun, I looked these up:

1. '94 49ers - 505 points scored (team won the Super Bowl)

2. '99 Rams - 526 points scored (team won the Super Bowl)

3. '04 Colts - 522 points scored

4. '83 Redskins - 541 points scored

5. '98 Vikings - 556 points scored

6. '81 Chargers - 478 points scored

7. '84 Dolphins - 513 points scored

8. '98 Broncos - 501 points scored (team won the Super Bowl)

9. '96 Packers - 456 points scored (team won the Super Bowl)

10. '92 Cowboys - 409 points scored (team won the Super Bowl)

Given that, the '92 Cowboys were lucky to even make this list, so saying they should be higher is ludicrous.

I think points scored to compare offenses is actually too simplistic. The reason the Dallas offense was so great was because they could score and control the clock whenever they wanted. Teams that score a lot of points generally are fast break offenses but are not as proficient of controlling the clock and wearing down the other team in the 4th quarter.

 

[Bankerguy]

For fun, I looked these up:

1. '94 49ers - 505 points scored (team won the Super Bowl)

2. '99 Rams - 526 points scored (team won the Super Bowl)

3. '04 Colts - 522 points scored

4. '83 Redskins - 541 points scored

5. '98 Vikings - 556 points scored

6. '81 Chargers - 478 points scored

7. '84 Dolphins - 513 points scored

8. '98 Broncos - 501 points scored (team won the Super Bowl)

9. '96 Packers - 456 points scored (team won the Super Bowl)

10. '92 Cowboys - 409 points scored (team won the Super Bowl)

Given that, the '92 Cowboys were lucky to even make this list, so saying they should be higher is ludicrous.

I think points scored to compare offenses is actually too simplistic. The reason the Dallas offense was so great was because they could score and control the clock whenever they wanted. Teams that score a lot of points generally are fast break offenses but are not as proficient of controlling the clock and wearing down the other team in the 4th quarter.

Ding Ding Ding.

 

[Ghost Rider]

I think points scored to compare offenses is actually too simplistic. The reason the Dallas offense was so great was because they could score and control the clock whenever they wanted. Teams that score a lot of points generally are fast break offenses but are not as proficient of controlling the clock and wearing down the other team in the 4th quarter.

Most of the other teams on that list, along with Dallas, had highly proficient running games as well, but simply had more explosive passing games that Dallas did. The Broncos had Terrell Davis. The Rams had Marshall Faulk. The Colts had Edgerrin James. Yada, yada, yada. Besides, in the end, scoring more points ultimately is the measuring stick for truly great offenses and the '92 Cowboys total is simply too low for them to rank near the top of a list like this.

The Cowboys offense of the early to mid 90's was great, but they never had that one dominant totally awesome single season to earn themselves a top spot on a list like this. This top 10 listed best single season offenses, not best offenses. If you want to list the best offenses over a several year span from the past 25 years and Dallas is up there, I would have no problem with that. They just do not have that one truly great offensive season that stands up or compares to the best ones of the past 25 years.

 

[Bankerguy]

I think points scored to compare offenses is actually too simplistic.  The reason the Dallas offense was so great was because they could score and control the clock whenever they wanted.  Teams that score a lot of points generally are fast break offenses but are not as proficient of controlling the clock and wearing down the other team in the 4th quarter.

Most of the other teams on that list, along with Dallas, had highly proficient running games as well, but simply had more explosive passing games that Dallas did. The Broncos had Terrell Davis. The Rams had Marshall Faulk. The Colts had Edgerrin James. Yada, yada, yada. Besides, in the end, scoring more points ultimately is the measuring stick for truly great offenses and the '92 Cowboys total is simply too low for them to rank near the top of a list like this.

The Cowboys offense of the early to mid 90's was great, but they never had that one dominant totally awesome single season to earn themselves a top spot on a list like this. This top 10 listed best single season offenses, not best offenses. If you want to list the best offenses over a several year span from the past 25 years and Dallas is up there, I would have no problem with that. They just do not have that one truly great offensive season that stands up or compares to the best ones of the past 25 years.

They built this team around a power running game not a 4 wide, air it out type offense. The category was best Offense not most explosive. If it most explosive, I'll digress.The Cowboys sure didn't have any problems scoring in the playoffs that year. They average 39 points scored. Not too shabby.

I'm curious to know how many point the 03 Colts averaged in the playoffs????

 

[Christo]

The fact that the 1992 Cowboys are only 10th is a joke.

One of the best O-lines in the history of the game.

The all time rushing leader.

Michael Irvin

Jay Novacek

Oh and some hall of fame QB named Troy Aikman.

To take it a little further...

The '92 Cowboys scored over 30 points in 6 of their 16 regular season games.

The '96 Packers scored over 30 points in 8 of their 16 regualr season games.

The '98 Broncos scored over 30 points in 10 of their 16 regular season games.

The '84 Dolphins scored over 30 points in 9 of their 16 regular season games.

The '81 Charger scored over 30 poins in 6 of their 16 regular season games.

The '98 Vikings scored over 30 points in 11 of their 16 regular season games.

The '83 Redkins scored over 30 points in 11 of their 16 regular season games.

The '04 Colts scored over 30 points in 10 of their 16 regular season games.

The '99 Rams scored over 30 points in 12 of their 16 regular season games.

The '94 49ers scored over 30 points in 10 of their 16 regular season games.

1. '94 49ers - 505 points scored (team won the Super Bowl)

2. '99 Rams - 526 points scored (team won the Super Bowl)

3. '04 Colts - 522 points scored

4. '83 Redskins - 541 points scored

5. '98 Vikings - 556 points scored

6. '81 Chargers - 478 points scored

7. '84 Dolphins - 513 points scored

8. '98 Broncos - 501 points scored (team won the Super Bowl)

9. '96 Packers - 456 points scored (team won the Super Bowl)

10. '92 Cowboys - 409 points scored (team won the Super Bowl)

why would you want to go and spoil the fun for Cowboys fans by quoting facts?

I think you have to also factor in time of possession and balance. The best thing that those early 90's Cowboys teams did was kill the clock and physically beat a defense into submission. Many great offenses put their defenses into bad positions because they scored so fast. Not the Cowboys. They'd be in a tight game in the third quarter and put together a 14, 15 or 16 play drive that just crushed the other team's spirits. At the same time they could score when they had to.

 

[Ghost Rider]

They built this team around a power running game not a 4 wide, air it out type offense. The category was best Offense not most explosive. If it most explosive, I'll digress.

They were built around a power running game because they didn't have the weapons to air it out all of the time. Trust me, if they had had the receivers some of those others team on the list had, they would have aired it out more. Norv Turner was their offensive coordinator and he has never had a problem throwing the ball downfield when he has the weapons. Dallas simply did not have enough weapons to feature a high-powered offensive attack. That is not a knock on them. It is merely pointing out the obvious. Plus, like I said earlier, plenty of those other offenses on that list could grind it out, too, if they had to. The '98 Broncos had a 2,000 yard RB, for heaven's sake.

The Cowboys sure didn't have any problems scoring in the playoffs that year. They average 39 points scored. Not too shabby.

Which is why I have no problem with them being in the list, despite their low (compared to the other teams on there) points scored total.

I'm curious to know how many point the 03 Colts averaged in the playoffs????

26, I think. I believe they scored 49 and 3 points.

 

[Bankerguy]

I think the Cowboys are hurt in this ranking because it wasn't "sexy". This offense ran 3 plays that were almost unstoppable:

1) Emmitt's sprint draw.

2) Irvin's 8-15 yard out pattern

3) Novacek's hitch route.

This team could do it all. Score to win in shootout outs. Or it could grind the game to halt with long methodical drives.

It amazes me when this team is debated how little respect they get. So, can someone else tell me why they won the Superbowl that year. Maybe I was drinking too much during these games (Probably true) and missed something.

 

[Ghost Rider]

I think the Cowboys are hurt in this ranking because it wasn't "sexy".

No. I already told you why. They were hurt because this was based on single seasons and the Cowboys never had that one truly great offensive season. Like I already said, if the rankings had been on offenses over a several-years span, the early to mid 90's Cowboys offense certainly would have been higher than 10 when talking about the last 25 years.

This team could do it all. Score to win in shootout outs. Or it could grind the game to halt with long methodical drives.

The same could be said for almost of those teams in the top 10 list.

It amazes me when this team is debated how little respect they get. So, can someone else tell me why they won the Superbowl that year. Maybe I was drinking too much during these games (Probably true) and missed something.

How are they getting little respect? Getting little respect would have been leaving them out altogether, but they are in the top 10, so how is that getting little respect? They won the Super Bowl because they were the best team that season. Duh.

 

[BlueOnion]

It wasn't so much the Cowboys' offense as it was Emmitt. You take Emmitt out of the team and they are mediocre.

I think they get downgraded as an offense because they were so much more dependent on one player.

 

[jurb26]

It wasn't so much the Cowboys' offense as it was Emmitt. You take Emmitt out of the team and they are mediocre.

I think they get downgraded as an offense because they were so much more dependent on one player.

Best Oline in the game

Game breaking WR

Possesion WR

Solid TE

Best blocking FB in game at time

HoF QB

This is a team that dependent on one player?

 

[Urinal Mint]

The '92 Cowboys did nothing but break your will on offense. They could get what they needed when they needed it. They didn't pile on the points because they got a two touchdown lead by the half and sat on it in the 3rd/4th quarters.

 

[Urinal Mint]

Alvin Harper wasn't exactly a slouch WR2 in the Zampese/Turner system. He stretched the field for guys like Irvin and Novacek to get open more easily.

 

[BlueOnion]

It wasn't so much the Cowboys' offense as it was Emmitt.  You take Emmitt out of the team and they are mediocre. 

I think they get downgraded as an offense because they were so much more dependent on one player.

Best Oline in the game

Game breaking WR

Possesion WR

Solid TE

Best blocking FB in game at time

HoF QB

This is a team that dependent on one player?

I believe it was 1993 when Emmitt held out and the Cowboys couldn't do squat and opened 0-2.

I cannot think of any other games Emmitt did not play in.

 

[thesurfshop19]

The '92 Cowboys did nothing but break your will on offense. They could get what they needed when they needed it. They didn't pile on the points because they got a two touchdown lead by the half and sat on it in the 3rd/4th quarters.

This seems to have a little hyperbole in it. Most of the teams on this list were very, very good and nearly all of them won a ton of double-digit games.In fact, by my count only the 1981 Chargers and 2004 Colts won fewer double-digit games (from teams on that list) than the 1992 Cowboys. Obviously, this is a flawed look given schedule strength and all (no question the 1992 Cowboys played a far tougher schedule than, say, the 1998 Broncos), but it does give some basic directional indicators.

The 1992 Cowboys were great on all sides of the ball, but I don't think I can bump them too much higher on the list. Anything you say about the Cowboys you can say about every last team on this list, 4 of which won Super Bowls just like the Cowboys did.

Out of all of these, I'd say that the offense I most feared was the 1998 Vikings. I was terrified of the Broncos having to face them because while I knew the Broncos could get 30+ against the Vikes' D, their soft spot was exactly the Vikings' strength.

 

[jurb26]

Out of all of these, I'd say that the offense I most feared was the 1998 Vikings. I was terrified of the Broncos having to face them because while I knew the Broncos could get 30+ against the Vikes' D, their soft spot was exactly the Vikings' strength.

That is my fav of the group as well. That 98 Vikes O was just so explosive they could score on any play with Moss or Smith. Then you just knew if it was 3rd down and they needed 11, Carter would get them 12. I can still remember vividly when Moss caught that screen pass on the near sideline and I was like OMG what a stupid play those guys are all over that! He turned up field with that long, awkward, walk thru the park looking stride and literally BLEW by what must have been 3 defenders who more than had him dead in the rights with an angle. You look at that, then factor in that this same guy was the best deap threat the NFL has ever seen, along with a Pro Bowl RB runnng through 2 lane wide seams and Carter pulling in every clutch catch. D's must have just been shaking their heads in fear.

 

[Assani Fisher]

I can't stand the Niners but the '88 or '89 team should have easily made this list as well.

Obviously, they were picking the best year by those franchises, otherwise, the '00 Rams and '01 Rams, for example, probably would have been on there, too.

The fact that the 1992 Cowboys are only 10th is a joke.

One of the best O-lines in the history of the game.

The all time rushing leader.

Michael Irvin

Jay Novacek

Oh and some hall of fame QB named Troy Aikman.

Great offense, yes, but where did they finish in total offense that year and how many points did they score? Answer: They were 2nd in points scored and 4th in total yardage. That is hardly great enough to warrant being higher than 10th on this list, especially when you consider that no other team from '92 is on this list.

I had a similar argument with several Cowboys fans when I ranked the super bowl winners in another thread. Cowboys fans can't seem to comprehend that statistically their early 90s teams really weren't as great as they'd like us to believe.

 

[Assani Fisher]

I think the Cowboys are hurt in this ranking because it wasn't "sexy". This offense ran 3 plays that were almost unstoppable:

1) Emmitt's sprint draw.

2) Irvin's 8-15 yard out pattern

3) Novacek's hitch route.

This team could do it all. Score to win in shootout outs. Or it could grind the game to halt with long methodical drives.

It amazes me when this team is debated how little respect they get. So, can someone else tell me why they won the Superbowl that year. Maybe I was drinking too much during these games (Probably true) and missed something.

The 1992 Cowboys were 9th in yards per rush attempt. They were 8th in yards per pass attempt. The stats and facts really are getting in the way of your argument here.

 

[Assani Fisher]

I think the Cowboys are hurt in this ranking because it wasn't "sexy". This offense ran 3 plays that were almost unstoppable:

1) Emmitt's sprint draw.

2) Irvin's 8-15 yard out pattern

3) Novacek's hitch route.

This team could do it all. Score to win in shootout outs. Or it could grind the game to halt with long methodical drives.

It amazes me when this team is debated how little respect they get. So, can someone else tell me why they won the Superbowl that year. Maybe I was drinking too much during these games (Probably true) and missed something.

I don't think they could. Their defense was great that year and was the best part of their team. Only once did their defense give up over 30 points that year. Guess how many points their offense scored that game.....7!

 

[Bankerguy]

I can't stand the Niners but the '88 or '89 team should have easily made this list as well.

Obviously, they were picking the best year by those franchises, otherwise, the '00 Rams and '01 Rams, for example, probably would have been on there, too.

The fact that the 1992 Cowboys are only 10th is a joke.

One of the best O-lines in the history of the game.

The all time rushing leader.

Michael Irvin

Jay Novacek

Oh and some hall of fame QB named Troy Aikman.

Great offense, yes, but where did they finish in total offense that year and how many points did they score? Answer: They were 2nd in points scored and 4th in total yardage. That is hardly great enough to warrant being higher than 10th on this list, especially when you consider that no other team from '92 is on this list.

I had a similar argument with several Cowboys fans when I ranked the super bowl winners in another thread. Cowboys fans can't seem to comprehend that statistically their early 90s teams really weren't as great as they'd like us to believe.

Stats smats.....I'd put my left nut that the 1992 team could beat seveal of the teams on your top SB teams. I will generalize and say that most Fantasy fans put way too weight on Stats.I also find it funny that anytime their is argument about how good Emmitt is, the answer is always he played with the best O-line in history. Funny how this gets down played now.

Just my 0.02.

 

[gang-wars]

Pretty good list. You can make a case for everyone on it.

The greatest show on turf is probably one of my favorite offenses. The precision and execution was unreal. Bruce/Holt were just so exact. Great fun.

 

[thesurfshop19]

Stats smats.....I'd put my left nut that the 1992 team could beat seveal of the teams on your top SB teams. I will generalize and say that most Fantasy fans put way too weight on Stats.

I also find it funny that anytime their is argument about how good Emmitt is, the answer is always he played with the best O-line in history. Funny how this gets down played now.

Just my 0.02.

I agree with you that most fantasy fans put too much weight on stats, but Assani's hardly in that category. He's argued for years -- longer than any non-Patriots fan I can remember on this board -- that Brady's the best QB in the league.I think the 1992 Cowboys were a great team and are worthy of a spot among the greatest in recent history, but their offense simply wasn't as dominant as some people remember it being. Great, absolutely yes. Playmaking, absolutely yes. Clutch, absolutely yes. Top 5 in the past 25 years, probably not.

 

[Assani Fisher]

I can't stand the Niners but the '88 or '89 team should have easily made this list as well.

Obviously, they were picking the best year by those franchises, otherwise, the '00 Rams and '01 Rams, for example, probably would have been on there, too.

The fact that the 1992 Cowboys are only 10th is a joke.

One of the best O-lines in the history of the game.

The all time rushing leader.

Michael Irvin

Jay Novacek

Oh and some hall of fame QB named Troy Aikman.

Great offense, yes, but where did they finish in total offense that year and how many points did they score? Answer: They were 2nd in points scored and 4th in total yardage. That is hardly great enough to warrant being higher than 10th on this list, especially when you consider that no other team from '92 is on this list.

I had a similar argument with several Cowboys fans when I ranked the super bowl winners in another thread. Cowboys fans can't seem to comprehend that statistically their early 90s teams really weren't as great as they'd like us to believe.

Stats smats.....I'd put my left nut that the 1992 team could beat seveal of the teams on your top SB teams. I will generalize and say that most Fantasy fans put way too weight on Stats.I also find it funny that anytime their is argument about how good Emmitt is, the answer is always he played with the best O-line in history. Funny how this gets down played now.

Just my 0.02.

Dude, I give E Smith all of the respect in the world. I have often times argued for him as better than B Sanders. Stats smats? Well does record matter? The 1992 Cowboys were blown out one game...31-7 I believe. The greatest teams of all time(85 Bears, 91 Redskins, 98 Broncos, etc.) didn't get blown out like that. In fact, their only losses were squeakers in which luck really was on their opponents side or meaningless late season games that they tanked. You can say stats don't matter, but surely the scoreboard does, no?

 

[DCThunder]

The '83 Redskins didn't win the Super Bowl because the players spent the night before the game at Mons Venus or elsewhere in Tampa area watering holes. This is a pretty well know fact in DC. So don't judge on Super Bowl wins alone.

The Raiders were a better team that day, but over the season, 541 points and the Riggo Drill to end games were a staple of Redskins football at that time.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Stats smats.....I'd put my left nut that the 1992 team could beat seveal of the teams on your top SB teams.

So what? This thread is about the best OFFENSES of the last 25 years, not the best SB teams. Of course, Dallas could have beaten some of those teams. They would have demolished the '81 Chargers or '84 Dolphins, but that doesn't mean their offense would be automatically better. That is like saying the Bucs had the best offense in '02 because they won the Super Bowl. You can laugh off stats all you want, but they tell the tale. The Cowboys had a great offense. No one is denying that. There have simply been other teams that had better single-seasons than the '92 Cowboys.

I had a similar argument with several Cowboys fans when I ranked the super bowl winners in another thread. Cowboys fans can't seem to comprehend that statistically their early 90s teams really weren't as great as they'd like us to believe.

I have noticed that, too. Shoot, they won 3 Super Bowl's in 4 seasons, so they obviously qualify as an all-time great team, but as has been said over and over and over, they never had a truly dominant offensive season, which is why they are only 10th on that list.

 

[Mr. Peterson]

THE 1990's BUFFALO BILLS!!! Kelly, Thurman, Reed, that offensive line. Dont know the stats but the K-gun was unstopable( besides in superbowls lol ). :X

 

[Keysersoze666]

I think the heart of the argument is that this is a list based on ONE season. Over a 4-5 year period, this early-90's era Dallas team fielded one of the most game-efficient offenses in the modern period. By game-efficient I mean that they could adapt to defensive schemes as well as control the clock if need be, whatever it took in that individual game.

As a Packer fan, watching our franchise rise from the ashes, I learned to have as much Respect/Hate for the Cowboys as any team I could remember.

In 1993, Green Bay finishes 6th in points scored and 9th in points given up.

LOSE to Dallas, 36-14, Reg Season

LOSE to Dallas, 27-17, Playoffs

In 1994, Green Bay finishes 4th in points scored and 5th in points given up.

LOSE to Dallas 42-31, Reg Season

LOSE to Dallas 35-9, Playoffs

In 1995, Green Bay finishes 6th in points scored and 4th on points given up.

LOSE to Dallas 34-24, Reg Season

LOSE to Dallas 38-27, Playoffs

In 1996, Green Bay finishes 1st in points scored and 1st in points given up.

LOSE to Dallas 21-6, Reg Season

OMG, the Cowboys lose to Carolina and the Packers romp through playoffs to win the Super Bowl.

At the time I was mad because I thought we finally had the team to beat them in the playoffs and the Super Bowl would have been even better if we had beaten them along the way. Looking back at it maybe I should be happy that they lost, since they held us without a TD in the regular season game.

Along that whole stretch of games, at the clutch times it always seemed to be the Cowboy offense that finished us off. We could NEVER stop Emmitt on the one play in a game that mattered. If we commited to stop the run we were shredded by Aikman with 12 yard passes when they needed 10 and 9 yarders when they needed 8. It was the most frustration I've ever felt as a fan and if I got to choose a team offense to NOT face in a one-game playoff ... it would be these guys.

 

[Jous]

I'm gonna go oldschool here....

The 1950 L.A. Rams HAVE to be on this list!

They lost by a field goal in the NFL championship game to Cleveland, but they had arguably the most dominant offense in the history of the game, and certainly in that era. Just because a team is old doesn't mean they shouldn't count...I mean, in the year 2060, should we not consider the 94 49'ers, just because they'd be an ancient team? Of course not.

The 1950 Rams set league records with 466 points on the season in 12 games....including a 70-27 win over the Colts, 65-24 over the Lions, and 51-14 over the Packers... they had 2 HOF QB's in Norm Van Borcklin and Bob Waterfield, and 2 HOF WR's in Elroy "Crazy Legs" Hirsch and Tom Fears.

 

[Jous]

Alright....I just noticed the title is top 10 offenses of the last 25 years....so off go the 1950 Rams...

*runs*

 

[vikingdave]

The '92 Cowboys did nothing but break your will on offense.  They could get what they needed when they needed it.  They didn't pile on the points because they got a two touchdown lead by the half and sat on it in the 3rd/4th quarters.

Out of all of these, I'd say that the offense I most feared was the 1998 Vikings. I was terrified of the Broncos having to face them because while I knew the Broncos could get 30+ against the Vikes' D, their soft spot was exactly the Vikings' strength.

You said exactly what I knew every Broncos fan thought in 1998, no way did Denver want to play Minnesota in the Super Bowl, they had to be throwing a party when Atlanta luckd out and beat us. Minnesota had the best offense EVER, how they are only top 5 is beyond me. Minnesota vs. Denver would have been a great Super Bowl, with Minnesota coming out on top and John Elway going out a loser.

 

[thesurfshop19]

You said exactly what I knew every Broncos fan thought in 1998, no way did Denver want to play Minnesota in the Super Bowl, they had to be throwing a party when Atlanta luckd out and beat us. Minnesota had the best offense EVER, how they are only top 5 is beyond me. Minnesota vs. Denver would have been a great Super Bowl, with Minnesota coming out on top and John Elway going out a loser.

No arguments here. Minnesota could definitely have taken out Denver and was arguably the better team during the season. But I'll take the championship. One thing about Denver is that they were defending champs, having taking out the previous champ in the title game. So that's why, historically, they've been given the benefit of the doubt that some other teams may not get for dodging an all-time great (IMO) team.

 

[thesurfshop19]

I think the heart of the argument is that this is a list based on ONE season. Over a 4-5 year period, this early-90's era Dallas team fielded one of the most game-efficient offenses in the modern period. By game-efficient I mean that they could adapt to defensive schemes as well as control the clock if need be, whatever it took in that individual game.

I think I definitely agree with that. Among recent teams, I'd put them with the late-90s Broncos when it comes to versatility.One thing that hurts Dallas big-time is that every single season that the Cowboys won the Super Bowl, you could argue that the 49ers had a better offense. In fact, the 49ers from 1992-1995 were #1 in points scored in all 4 years and #1 in yards gained in 3 years (#2 in 1995) -- something I can't recall any other team doing (the 1999-2001 Rams did it over 3 years).

The 49ers may not have been as versatile, and you could even argue that in 1994 the Cowboys would have beaten them if not for a ridiculously flukish 8 minutes. But strictly based on quality of offense, I still have to take the early 90s Niners over their Cowboy rivals.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Atlanta went 14-2 in '98, so it is not like the Broncos beat a bunch of chumps in the Super Bowl. The Falcons were a tremendous team that year and had they beat the Broncos, they would have been one of the better Super Bowl champs of the last decade or so.

As for the Vikings, yes, as a Broncos fan, they scared me a bit, but I was always pretty confident the Broncos would have beaten them. The Vikings defense wasn't good enough, while Denver's always made enough plays to get the job done.

The 49ers may not have been as versatile, and you could even argue that in 1994 the Cowboys would have beaten them if not for a ridiculously flukish 8 minutes. But strictly based on quality of offense, I still have to take the early 90s Niners over their Cowboy rivals.

Without a doubt. That 49ers offense was a machine. However, SF's defense wasn't very good some of the years and Dallas' was, which is why Dallas won 3 SB's in the 90's and SF only won 1.

 

[snorlax]

At the time I was mad because I thought we finally had the team to beat them in the playoffs and the Super Bowl would have been even better if we had beaten them along the way. Looking back at it maybe I should be happy that they lost, since they held us without a TD in the regular season game.

Umm, we scored a TD. Dallas is the team that didn't score a touchdown.

 

[BlueOnion]

Just because a team is old doesn't mean they shouldn't count...I mean, in the year 2060, should we not consider the 94 49'ers, just because they'd be an ancient team? Of course not.

Read the first post, this list was not the best offenses of all-time, just the best offenses over the past 25 years.FYI - That team that beat the Rams in the Championship by 3 points (Paul Brown and the Cleveland Browns) had a better offense.

 

[Despyzer]

Just because a team is old doesn't mean they shouldn't count...I mean, in the year 2060, should we not consider the 94 49'ers, just because they'd be an ancient team? Of course not.

Read the first post, this list was not the best offenses of all-time, just the best offenses over the past 25 years.

Maybe "old school" = "ignoring the criteria"?*Edit to add - This thread is hilarious. You Cowboys fans crack me up!

 

[thesurfshop19]

Atlanta went 14-2 in '98, so it is not like the Broncos beat a bunch of chumps in the Super Bowl. The Falcons were a tremendous team that year and had they beat the Broncos, they would have been one of the better Super Bowl champs of the last decade or so.

As for the Vikings, yes, as a Broncos fan, they scared me a bit, but I was always pretty confident the Broncos would have beaten them. The Vikings defense wasn't good enough, while Denver's always made enough plays to get the job done.

I agree that Atlanta was also a monster team, and some of the numbers actually say the Jets were just as good that year, so the Broncos took out majorly quality opposition on the way.That said, I definitely didn't share your confidence in the Broncos. Maybe it was because, after the 19-0 pressure got to them late in the season, I wasn't sure whether they could turn it back on.

 

[Keysersoze666]

At the time I was mad because I thought we finally had the team to beat them in the playoffs and the Super Bowl would have been even better if we had beaten them along the way.  Looking back at it maybe I should be happy that they lost, since they held us without a TD in the regular season game.

Umm, we scored a TD. Dallas is the team that didn't score a touchdown.

Good call snorlax, we did score a late TD and not two field goals, I'm sure I was drunk and pissed at that point and lost a few brain cells. When I read your comment, my mind did stir about all those STUPID Dallas field goals and the game began to come back to me. Thanks for the memory, hehehe. Box Score

 

[redman]

4. '83 Redskins - 541 points scored

This would have been known as the best Redskins team of all time but for the humiliating loss to the Raiders in the Super Bowl. In addition to the ridiculous offensive output, they ended the year with a +42 turnover differential. Think about that - they averaged almost 3 more turnovers per game than their opponents got. It's one of hte most amazing NFL single-season stats I can think of and it gives you a good idea as to how they could have scored that many points.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Atlanta went 14-2 in '98, so it is not like the Broncos beat a bunch of chumps in the Super Bowl. The Falcons were a tremendous team that year and had they beat the Broncos, they would have been one of the better Super Bowl champs of the last decade or so.

As for the Vikings, yes, as a Broncos fan, they scared me a bit, but I was always pretty confident the Broncos would have beaten them. The Vikings defense wasn't good enough, while Denver's always made enough plays to get the job done.

I agree that Atlanta was also a monster team, and some of the numbers actually say the Jets were just as good that year, so the Broncos took out majorly quality opposition on the way.That said, I definitely didn't share your confidence in the Broncos. Maybe it was because, after the 19-0 pressure got to them late in the season, I wasn't sure whether they could turn it back on.

I was worried going into the playoffs, but once they wiped out Miami 38-3 in the second round, my confidence in them was sky high again. The '98 Broncos were one of those that could score at will out of nowhere.