Who is the Greatest SB Team Ever?

steel man · 04-04-2007, 07:25 AM

IMO and in many others the 1978 Pittsburgh Steelers is the
Greatest EVER!

Proof:
http://www.steelergridiron.com/history/greatest.html

GSOT · 04-04-2007, 07:47 AM

*Homer Alert*

1999 Rams

bigbluedefense · 04-04-2007, 07:58 AM

Real pick: 78 Steelers
Homer pick: duh, look at the sig

Honorable mentions:
89 49ers
85 Bears
91 Skins
90s Cowboys
98 Broncos
96 Packers
94 49ers
90 Giants

Ok, maybe theyre not honorable mentions, more like teams that I personally thought were good over the past 20 years.

cardsalltheway · 04-04-2007, 07:58 AM

They only won because they didn't face the '07 Colts.

bigbluedefense · 04-04-2007, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cardsalltheway

They only won because they didn't face the '07 Colts.

If you think about it, the 07 Colts might be, the worst SB team ever. Im not saying for sure, but you can make an agrument for it.

WinslowBodden · 04-04-2007, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

If you think about it, the 07 Colts might be, the worst SB team ever. Im not saying for sure, but you can make an agrument for it.

Yeah, so true, I mean they have possibly the greatest QB ever (JIM SORGI), one of the greatest receivers ever, another good receiver, a great tight end, a great o-line, a great young runningback, and a defense that stepped it up in the postseason led by a great safety and a great defensive lineman, not to mention on the way there, they beat the Patriots, one of the best teams in the league.

cardsalltheway · 04-04-2007, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

If you think about it, the 07 Colts might be, the worst SB team ever. Im not saying for sure, but you can make an agrument for it.

If we're talking just in terms of regular season play, then I think you have to put the '06 Steelers beneath them, but I agree, they're definitely near the bottom.

bigbluedefense · 04-04-2007, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WinslowBodden

Yeah, so true, I mean they have possibly the greatest QB ever (JIM SORGI), one of the greatest receivers ever, another good receiver, a great tight end, a great o-line, a great young runningback, and a defense that stepped it up in the postseason led by a great safety and a great defensive lineman, not to mention on the way there, they beat the Patriots, one of the best teams in the league.

When you talk about greatest teams ever, its not just what they did for a stretch of the season. You must look at the whole body of work.

Are we to honestly believe that the SB team with the worst rush defense in the league would beat any other SB team? Come on.

And Peyton didn't exactly play lights out in the playoffs either. Outside of the 2nd half of the Patriots game, he was pretty average. And Marvin Harrison was shut down the entire playoff run. He was almost invisible out there.

Its not like we're comparing the 07 Colts to to the 07 Raiders. We're talking about a comparison of SB winning teams. I have a hard time believing that the SB team with the worst rush defense out of any SB team in NFL history would win a game against its respective competition. Did they play good rush defense at the end? Yes, but thats just part of the season. Again, you gotta look at the whole body of work.

And they had to sell out and put like 9 in the box during the playoffs to stop the run. They were lucky that all the teams they played had no pass attack to take advantage of it. The only team that remotely did was the Patriots, and they scored over 30 points in that game.

bsaza2358 · 04-04-2007, 08:40 AM

In the salary cap era, it is very difficult to find a perfect team. The squads listed by BBD were the result of amazing drafts, talent development, and the lack of a salary cap that allowed teams to keep as many (or as few) players as they wanted. You really can't compare SB Teams of the past 10 years with other times in NFL history.

bigbluedefense · 04-04-2007, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bsaza2358

In the salary cap era, it is very difficult to find a perfect team. The squads listed by BBD were the result of amazing drafts, talent development, and the lack of a salary cap that allowed teams to keep as many (or as few) players as they wanted. You really can't compare SB Teams of the past 10 years with other times in NFL history.

Thats true. Im starting to think that the salary cap era should maybe be viewed in a different context relative to the rest of the NFL teams.

I think when we talk about the best team of the salary cap era, its between the 2000 Ravens and 2004 NE Patriots. Both had very good defenses. The only thing is, because of the salary cap era, they had very very average offenses that forces you to take them lightly compared to other teams pre FA era.

But I think when we look back at that 2004 NE team, I don't think people realize how good that defense was.

You had a HOF NT in Ted Washington. Richard Seymour is probably on his way to a HOF career.

McGinnest is a HOFer. Tedy might get in eventually, maybe not. Vrabel will get snubbed. Ty Law should be a HOFer. Harrison will get snubbed but he's damn good too.

That was a damn good defense. It wasn't flashy, but it was damn good. Overlooked almost. Id compare that defense with some of the greats. Compare the overall team? No. But I definately think the defense can hang with some of the historic defenses out there. Not saying its better, but it can hang with them.

eacantdraft · 04-04-2007, 08:52 AM

Best Super Bowl team. 1985 Bears. Only one lost in the regular season and they blew through the playoffs giving up only 10 points with two shut outs.

Worst Super Bowl winner: 1972 Colts.

bigbluedefense · 04-04-2007, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eacantdraft

Best Super Bowl team. 1985 Bears. Only one lost in the regular season and they blew through the playoffs giving up only 10 points with two shut outs.

Worst Super Bowl winner: 1972 Colts.

72 Colts werent that bad of a team. That just happened to be the ugliest SB ever. But the team itself wasn't that bad.

PACKmanN · 04-04-2007, 08:55 AM

It has to be the 96 Packers and if we didnt have an IMO overrated HC in Homgren we could have won it in 97.

bsaza2358 · 04-04-2007, 08:56 AM

Due to the salary cap and free agency, it is nearly impossible for teams to have superior athletes in every position and superior depth as well. You would never have a Montana/Young QB tandem. The Steel Curtain D would have been broken up as players sought bigger money and bonuses on the open market. The NFL eliminating guaranteed contracts and instituting the salary cap meant sacrificing dynasties for parity. It was good for the game, but you're likely not going to have incredible superhuman teams anymore. At least not for more than 1-2 years.

YAYareaRB · 04-04-2007, 08:58 AM

My pick is 94 49ers.. Too Much TALENT on that team.

bigbluedefense · 04-04-2007, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PACKmanN

It has to be the 96 Packers and if we didnt have an IMO overrated HC in Homgren we could have won it in 97.

1. No, just no. Im one of the guys who believes the 96 Packers are overlooked but come on now. Ill let BF51 handle this one.

2. Holmgren is NOTHING NEAR overrated. He may be underrated. Him and BP I believe were the closest HCs in NFL history to winning SBs with 2 teams. His resume with qbs is through the roof. Its simply amazing how many qbs he's developed. And none of them were 1st rounders.

I can go on and on about Holmgren. I have a ton of respect for the guy. Look at the coaching tree too by the way. Holmgren was the man. Amazing coach, and far from overrated.

bsaza2358 · 04-04-2007, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PACKmanN

It has to be the 96 Packers and if we didnt have an IMO overrated HC in Homgren we could have won it in 97.

I would LOVE to see the 1996 Packers team go up against the 1981 Raiders, 1985 Bears, 1986 Giants, 1988 49ers, 1992 Cowboys, 1991 Redskins, or many other teams. (Not trying to miss anyone here, just making a point)

The Packers were not that good, but they were talented. They went up against an overmatched Pats team, but they weren't so dominant overall that they weren't beatable. You think they would have rushed for more than 40 yards against any of those defenses?

njx9 · 04-04-2007, 09:01 AM

jesus h. christ. what's next? "what team named the pittsburgh steelers is the best team ever?!" or "the pittsburgh steelers... best team ever!!!!" or maybe "how the pittsburgh steelers founded all western civilization, invented the internet, helped jack bauer rid the world of terrorism AND stopped a secret alien invasion the morning before winning their 82nd consecutive super bowl and just before being elected collective president after which football was disbanded because really, with the steelers in the league, what's the point, right?"

bigbluedefense · 04-04-2007, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by njx9

jesus h. christ. what's next? "what team named the pittsburgh steelers is the best team ever?!" or "the pittsburgh steelers... best team ever!!!!" or maybe "how the pittsburgh steelers founded all western civilization, invented the internet, helped jack bauer rid the world of terrorism AND stopped a secret alien invasion the morning before winning their 82nd consecutive super bowl and just before being elected collective president after which football was disbanded because really, with the steelers in the league, what's the point, right?"

Yeah, I noticed that about his threads too, lol.

Homerism is cute sometimes. I need a good laugh here and there.

bsaza2358 · 04-04-2007, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

1. No, just no. Im one of the guys who believes the 96 Packers are overlooked but come on now. Ill let BF51 handle this one.

2. Holmgren is NOTHING NEAR overrated. He may be underrated. Him and BP I believe were the closest HCs in NFL history to winning SBs with 2 teams. His resume with qbs is through the roof. Its simply amazing how many qbs he's developed. And none of them were 1st rounders.

I can go on and on about Holmgren. I have a ton of respect for the guy. Look at the coaching tree too by the way. Holmgren was the man. Amazing coach, and far from overrated.

Holmgren's direct coaching tree:

Mike Sherman, Andy Reid, Ray Rhodes, John Gruden, Steve Mariucci, Dick Jauron, Marty Mornenweig (sp)

bsaza2358 · 04-04-2007, 09:05 AM

Steel Man arguing with his twin about the Steelers:

"The Steelers are awesome!"

"No, the Steelers are the best team ever!"

"Wrong! The Steelers are the greatest franchise in football."

"Come on! The Steelers cannot be beaten by anyone."

And so on...

njx9 · 04-04-2007, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

Yeah, I noticed that about his threads too, lol.

Homerism is cute sometimes. I need a good laugh here and there.

i was honestly impressed that a few of you managed to make this into an interesting conversation. after seeing the last one, this one nearly got deleted out of hand. =/

bigbluedefense · 04-04-2007, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bsaza2358

Holmgren's direct coaching tree:

Mike Sherman, Andy Reid, Ray Rhodes, John Gruden, Steve Mariucci, Dick Jauron, Marty Mornenweig (sp)

Not too shabby.

The system he runs is a model for qb success too. He's had qb success everywhere he goes.

And Andy Reid has taken the same approach, and has the same success. One of the more overlooked aspects of Reid's coaching is how he can have success with backup Qbs. I mean, he took Feeley to the NFC championship game. This past year they had the #2 offense in the league with no WRs and Jeff Garcia at qb.

Says something about the system. Very impressive.

EDIT: Philly's WRs are a little overlooked. But they have a catch by committee approach that most teams dont do. And its very successful in its own right. You notice that those players generally have a drop off in production after they leave Philly, so the system is definately a big part of the success.

luckyjackaubrey · 04-04-2007, 09:06 AM

In regards to the salary cap era choices I have to say the 2004 Pats over the 2000 Ravens. On defence, no question the Ravens were about as good as it gets, but they had to be, the offence was inept. The Patriot defence would certainly take a backseat to that Raven unit, but they were excellent as well. Less dominating for sure, and not the game changing big play threat, but more than up to the task of controlling the oppostions offence.

The difference is the offense NE put on the field was light years ahead of anything the Ravens had. THey were not the Colts or the Rams game in ,game out but they could put up the numbers if need be. They often employed a ball control system and were more intent on controlling the clock and field position.

On a 1-10 scale I would say

Defense:
Ravens 10
Patriots 8

Offense:
Ravens 4
Patriots 8

Fairly close overall, I just have to give the nod to the more balanced team. In a sport where its win or go home, I don't want to go into that game with the pressure squarely on one units shoulders. The Raven D was dominant , but they had to be. New England had the "luxury " of having two units who could pick up the slack for the other depending apon the opponent.

PACKmanN · 04-04-2007, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bsaza2358

I would LOVE to see the 1996 Packers team go up against the 1981 Raiders, 1985 Bears, 1986 Giants, 1988 49ers, 1992 Cowboys, 1991 Redskins, or many other teams. (Not trying to miss anyone here, just making a point)

The Packers were not that good, but they were talented. They went up against an overmatched Pats team, but they weren't so dominant overall that they weren't beatable. You think they would have rushed for more than 40 yards against any of those defenses?

and thats what pissed me off. We had a very talented team but for some reason when it came down to the biggest game we looked like little kids out there. Im not saying that Holgren was a bad coach but I belive he should have been better prepared for thoses games.