Greatest Teams in History

[Giants/Jets Legend]

Who were some of the greatest teams in pro-football history?

For me, it is hard to really choose.

Some of the best teams ever were:

1985 Bears
1972 Dolphins
1968 Jets
1974-1975 Steelers
1992-1993 Cowboys

[redbuck]

How about the 98-99 Denver Broncos? 14-2, clean sweep through the playoffs, dominating Super Bowl win

Are we talking teams or dynasties, because I'd say the '80s 49ers were the greatest teams of all time collectively.

[Willie]

1985 Bears
1962 Packers
1978 Steelers
1976 Raiders
1989 49ers

[tdk1984]

If the 2000 Ravens had an offense, I'd say they were the best ever. As it was, their D was good enough to put the offense on their backs and carry the team to the Super Bowl title. Luckily, the Ravens had Jamal Lewis to carry the ball, otherwise they would have had no offense to speak of (and since they had very little O in the first place, that's a scary thought) and they would likely have missed the playoffs altogether. However, since I'm mentioning "ifs" had the 1969 Vikings won the Super Bowl, I'd say they were the best ever. Ravens-like dominating D with an offense that actually existed, but they choked in the Super Bowl (the Purple People Eaters were too small and got pushed around by KC's O-Line).

Anyway, as much as it pains me to say it, I'd have to go with the '85 Bears. Good O, stellar D.

[Snake]

As far as most complete and dominating team, for me its the 85 Bears. They had one of the best defenses of all time, and had an Offense to go along with it. Payton was still running strong, Good WRs, McMahon was doing his thing. Probably the only bad thing about the team that year was "The Super Bowl Shuffle" song and video they put out :eek: :D

[gridiron]

Lombardi's Packers in the 1960s--five titles in 7 years and they may have had more if 2 players, including Hornung, weren't suspended for gambling in 1963.

For single season, maybe the 1993 Cowboys--I think they could have beaten the 1985 Bears.

[redbuck]

Are we adjusting for overall talent, because I don't think the '60s teams could compete with the best teams today simply because of a lack of size

[tdk1984]

I would say we are adjusting (at least I was anyway). After all, chances are, due to size differences (among other things), last year's Texans would probably beat the '60s Packers. However, on a level playing field, it would be a completely different story.

[gridiron]

Size does make a difference, so today's behemouths could probably even beat the great teams of the 90s.

I choose Lombardi's Pack because I think Lombardi would find a way to win titles no matter what the league situation.

Maybe we should start a greatest coach thread, but it would probably come down to Lombardi, Lombardi and ?:p

[webmaster]

Are we adjusting for overall talent, because I don't think the '60s teams could compete with the best teams today simply because of a lack of size

So you believe that if we lifted the undeafeted Dolphins of '72 into the NFL of today they would not have won? I would probably conceed that they might not have gone undefeated, but how much of a difference do you think it would make in their record?

Sean

[Snake]

Ya, I am with redbuck on this one. No way the teams of yesteryear would be able to do what they did back then against todays atheletes/teams. You have DL's now that at 6'4-6'6 and at close to 300 lbs, that not only are bigger/stronger than their earlier counterparts, but are just as fast as some of the Backs and Receivers that played back then. I only used DL's as an example, this athleticism and size difference runs across the board.

To answer Sean's question; I believe without a shadow of a doubt that the 72Dolphins would not come close to what they did back then in todays NFL.

I am not saying there weren't players back then that couldn't play today, but the teams as a whole, no way.

[gridiron]

I doubt they could win the SB given the size difference. But since size counts, the greatest team in 2010 will knock off any team we pick now.

[tdk1984]

Most likely I'd have to agree.

[football junkie]

The 1988 San Francisco 49ers are in my mind the greatest team in NFL history. They had the greatest quarterback in the history of the game: Joe Montana. Hall of Famer Steve Young was backing him up. Hall of Famer Ronnie Lott was stuffing the rush and sacking quarterbacks like a mad man. Roger Craig rushed for 1,502 yards and caught 76 receptions for an additional 534 yard receiving. But most importantly the 49ers had the single greatest football player to ever put on a uniform on that roster: Jerry Rice. Rice was good for 1,306 receiving yards for an average of 20.6 yards a catch. He was also the Superbowl MVP in that year's playoffs, giving Bill Walsh his third Lombardi Trophy and capping a magnificent career as an NFL coach.

[gridiron]

OK, but could they have beaten the 1992 Cowboys or 1985 Bears? Or even the 1979 Steelers?

[football junkie]

Not only could they have beaten them, they could have dissected them. Neither Troy Aikman nor Terry Bradshaw were any match for Montana -- or Young.

The '85 Bears would be the only problem in my estimation. But with the constant pounding of Tom Rathman, the elusiveness of Brent Jones, the toughness of John Taylor and the greatness of Jerry Rice, Montana could have overcome Ryan's defense. Roger Craig would have been the X-factor. I think they would have worn down the Bears -- just like they did in the NFC Championship Game -- which the 49ers won 28-3.

Walsh was a visionary and I don't think the Bears would have scored 10 points on the 49ers.

[gridiron]

NFL films ran a computer stimulation of the greatest teams around 1990, after Montan's last SB win.This was done before the Cowboy wins of the 90s. The teams included the 72 Dolphins, the Pack and Colts champions, etc. etc.the Steelers beat the Montan 49's in the championship game. The 85 Bears did not make the the computerized SB.
NLF people swore it was so hard they would never do it again, so they never put the 90s Dallas teams into the mix.

I remember seeing the digitized highlights and the Steelers won by intercepting Montana close the the goal line late in the game. I couldn't beleive anyone had Montana getting intercepted in a SB, even in a fantasy, but that's what the computers said would happen.

[football junkie]

Now they'd have to include the Broncos' mini-dynasty at the end of the 90s and the Patriots' domination of this decade.

I wonder, did they include any teams before the 1970s Steelers? Like the Jets, Chiefs, Colts or Packers of the 1960s?

[mordeci]

So you believe that if we lifted the undeafeted Dolphins of '72 into the NFL of today they would not have won? I would probably conceed that they might not have gone undefeated, but how much of a difference do you think it would make in their record?

Sean
I would say the difference would be about 14 regular season wins (0, not 28). They might have a chance against the Texans (you and 10 of your close friends might have a chance against the Texans). The size difference is just too dramatic for any 70's team to compete today. The average lineman in the 70's was 255 lbs, today its over 300. Plus the Dolphins, more than other teams of the era, would be hurt by rule changes. To win today you have to have a top flight QB.

[Willie]

Now they'd have to include the Broncos' mini-dynasty at the end of the 90s and the Patriots' domination of this decade.

I wonder, did they include any teams before the 1970s Steelers? Like the Jets, Chiefs, Colts or Packers of the 1960s?

NFL Films staged the Dream Season in 1989.

East Division
'78 Steelers 6-0
'86 Giants 4-2
'59 Colts 3-3
'60 Eagles 2-4
'68 Jets 1-5

West Division
'84 49ers 5-1
'77 Cowboys 3-3
'83 Raiders 2-4
'63 Chargers 1-5
'51 Rams 1-5

North Division
'76 Raiders 6-0
'85 Bears 5-1
'66 Packers 4-2
'53 Lions 2-4
'64 Browns 1-5

South Division
'72 Dolphins 6-0
'82 Redskins 3-3
'55 Browns 3-3
'69 Chiefs 2-4
'71 Cowboys 0-6

Playoffs-
'78 Steelers 20, '84 49ers 17
'72 Dolphins 24, '76 Raiders 21

Dream Bowl-
'78 Steelers 21, '72 Dolphins 20

[football junkie]

Well it's a good thing computers don't play football. I don't think the game would be as fun to watch then.

PC League vs. MAC League, linux and unix of course would be marginalized.

Computer simulations always worry me because I wonder if people will actually put any belief in them. It reminds me of BBF and the "sabermatericians" bragging about making up their own metrics -- of course without any regard for proper statistical analysis, methodology, ecological validity or reliability. To me that's just bragging about stupidity.

But I suppose some computer sims are mildly interesting.

[gridiron]

So how do you do ecologically valid statistical analysis that includes size? :confused: I don't think many of the 1972 Dolphins could see over/around a lot of the 1992-1993 Cowboys.

[D.C.]

If one cannot compare teams of different era's due to size/athleticism of its players or the difference in strategy used, then what can we use as criteria? Dominance over their league during the timespan? The quality of the teams individual players? Or should you just concede and say that teams of a given era are invariably better than those preceding and any comparison is moot?

NFL Films staged the Dream Season in 1989.


Given that what others have been talking about, it seems that it should not be surprising that pre-1970 teams did all that well in the simulation.

[boomer]

Well it's a good thing computers don't play football. I don't think the game would be as fun to watch then.

PC League vs. MAC League, linux and unix of course would be marginalized.

Computer simulations always worry me because I wonder if people will actually put any belief in them. It reminds me of BBF and the "sabermatericians" bragging about making up their own metrics -- of course without any regard for proper statistical analysis, methodology, ecological validity or reliability. To me that's just bragging about stupidity.

But I suppose some computer sims are mildly interesting.Junkie, I couldn't agree anymore, in particular with your comments about BBF and the nerdwits prattling on about the new metrics or stats they've invented, as if they can honestly know much about guys who played 80 years ago, beyond the numbers they've posted.

[football junkie]

Junkie, I couldn't agree anymore, in particular with your comments about BBF and the nerdwits prattling on about the new metrics or stats they've invented, as if they can honestly know much about guys who played 80 years ago, beyond the numbers they've posted.

Glad somebody else sees it. I tried posting and talking to a couple die hard metric-maker-uppers over at BBF but it's like talking to a brick wall. There is just no respect for the proper way to conduct research or the scientific method.

[soberdennis]

NFL Films staged the Dream Season in 1989.

East Division
'78 Steelers 6-0
'86 Giants 4-2
'59 Colts 3-3
'60 Eagles 2-4
'68 Jets 1-5

West Division
'84 49ers 5-1
'77 Cowboys 3-3
'83 Raiders 2-4
'63 Chargers 1-5
'51 Rams 1-5

North Division
'76 Raiders 6-0
'85 Bears 5-1
'66 Packers 4-2
'53 Lions 2-4
'64 Browns 1-5

South Division
'72 Dolphins 6-0
'82 Redskins 3-3
'55 Browns 3-3
'69 Chiefs 2-4
'71 Cowboys 0-6

Playoffs-
'78 Steelers 20, '84 49ers 17
'72 Dolphins 24, '76 Raiders 21

Dream Bowl-
'78 Steelers 21, '72 Dolphins 20
I remember another simulated series they had in the 90s involving the 60s Packers, 70's Steelers, 80s Niners, and 90s Cowboys. The Steelers beat the Niners in the championship. But what I remember most about it was the championship ended with a reenactment of the Immaculate Reception with Ronnie Lott playing the Jack Tatum role. I thought it was ridiculous.

That said one team and only one team has done something I do not expect to see again in my lifetime. That was the 72 Dolphins.

[football junkie]

one team and only one team has done something I do not expect to see again in my lifetime. That was the 72 Dolphins.

Sadly, that's probably true. It seems that once teams clinch home-field advantage and a first-round bye that usually means resting starters for the most of the remainder of the season.

Besides increased marketability, there is no longer incentive for a team to go 16 and 0.

[CCN]

The '72 Dolphins won the majority of their games, at least in the regular season, with their backup, Earl Morrall. With the exception of Tom Brady from out of nowhere with the Patriots, does anyone see that occuring in this day and age? The Dolphins were luck to have such an experienced backup with a run-geared offense.

Those Packer teams of the early 60's were so loaded. All things being equal, it's tough to go against them or the late 70's Steelers.

[KHenry14]

While the 88' Niners were good in the post-season, they struggled in the regular season. But the 89 Niners just steamrolled the entire league, and when they got the the playoffs they got even better. Cumulating with the worst thrashing of a team in the history of the SB.

And for those who pump up the 85 Bears, they were a great team, no doubt, but the Niners beat them badly in the 84 playoffs, and once again in the 88 playoffs in Chicago when everyone said a warm weather team couldn't win in Bear Weather. And they crushed them. I contend that 85 was a down year in the NFL, and had the Bears not been a great story with all the "colorful" guys on that team, they might not quite as revered as they are.

[gridiron]

Junkie,

I agree the metrics people are often way off base. Overall stats are good, I love Total Average for BB. Ialso prefer relative to the league stats and rate stats because even standard deviations have weaknesses--look at Ruth 1920-1921 for HR for instance.
What sceintific methods do you use? (Obviously, I'm not even trying to guess your moniker over on BBF, and no, I don't need to know).

[Snake]

While the 88' Niners were good in the post-season, they struggled in the regular season. But the 89 Niners just steamrolled the entire league, and when they got the the playoffs they got even better. Cumulating with the worst thrashing of a team in the history of the SB.

And for those who pump up the 85 Bears, they were a great team, no doubt, but the Niners beat them badly in the 84 playoffs, and once again in the 88 playoffs in Chicago when everyone said a warm weather team couldn't win in Bear Weather. And they crushed them. I contend that 85 was a down year in the NFL, and had the Bears not been a great story with all the "colorful" guys on that team, they might not quite as revered as they are.


Then I contend that 1989 was just a down year for the NFL. ;)

[KHenry14]

Then I contend that 1989 was just a down year for the NFL. ;)

No, No, it was completely different then! :D

[Denbrnc]

1. 78 Steelers
2. 94 49ers
3. 75 Steelers
4. 89 Niners
5. 66 Packers
6. 77 Cowboys
7. 97 Broncos
8. 72 Dolphins
9. 84 49ers
10. 85 Bears

[Steve_Atwater]

I don't really know what the best team of all time is, I mean, I like the '25 Pottsville Maroons, but having seen them play just once, I can't say I have a totally informed opinion. But I'd like to reiterate (SP?) what Redbuck said. The 98 Broncos were a terrific, and genreally speaking, vastly underrated team in these kinds of discussions. They crushed a 14-2 team that had just beaten a 15-1 team in the SB. They're offense was superb, both rushing and passing wise, and they're defense, wich was disregarded by many, gave up a grand total of one TD on drives of more than a foot in the playoffs. Without verifying, I'm pretty sure even the 85 Bears or the '00 Ravens' D's didn't do better.

My bias in their favor is obvious, but they were extremely good. I can't think of a better team in the last 15 years, considering the fact that last years' Patriots didn't win the big game. I'd say top-5 to top-10, all-time.

[Denbrnc]

I agree, Steve. The only team that was better than those teams in the last 18 years was the 94 49ers. I didn't like how America's Game had the 04 Pats ranked ahead of both of those teams. None of the Patriot SB winners should have been in the top 20. Those teams were questionable.

[CaptainComeback]

My current top 5:

1 '78 Steelers
2 '85 Bears
3 '72 Dolphins
4 '92 Cowboys
5 '84 49ers

[Seattle1]

Those Steelers teams of the 1970s were all on steroids, hardcore.

[Denbrnc]

Those Steelers teams of the 1970s were all on steroids, hardcore.

For one, Steroids were legal, and a lot of other teams in the league may have been using them. Secondly, I don't think that the whole team was using them. Just some of the O-linemen, like Mike Webster and Steve Courson. And, Courson was only on two of their four championship teams.

[Seattle1]

For one, Steroids were legal, and a lot of other teams in the league may have been using them. Secondly, I don't think that the whole team was using them. Just some of the O-linemen, like Mike Webster and Steve Courson. And, Courson was only on two of their four championship teams.

Bradshaw has admitted using them too. I bet Rocky Bleier used them to come back from war injuries. Etc. I bet the whole team was on them like the commie athletes in the Olympics from that time frame. Roided up to the hilt. 4 Super Bowls in 6 years? They obviously had a competitive advantage that was head & shoulders above the rest of the league. Some of it can be chalked up to a talented roster and good coaching, but not 4 Super Bowls in 6 years worth, imho.

:twocents:

[Denbrnc]

Bradshaw has admitted using them too. I bet Rocky Bleier used them to come back from war injuries. Etc. I bet the whole team was on them like the commie athletes in the Olympics from that time frame. Roided up to the hilt. 4 Super Bowls in 6 years? They obviously had a competitive advantage that was head & shoulders above the rest of the league. Some of it can be chalked up to a talented roster and good coaching, but not 4 Super Bowls in 6 years worth, imho.

:twocents:

I still don't think the whole team used them. And, I do think that they had more than enough talent to win 4 SB's. They could have won more. You had nine Hall-of-Famers on that team, and even more than that were Pro-Bowlers. That was an amazing team.

[whiteyball1977]

I've got 17 possible options.

All of these teams won the Super Bowl. Just regular season record is listed.

1966 Packers - 12-2
1972 Dolphins - 14-0
1975 Steelers - 12-2
1976 Raiders - 13-1
1977 Cowboys - 12-2
1978 Steelers - 14-2
1984 49ers - 15-1
1985 Bears - 15-1
1986 Giants - 14-2
1989 49ers - 14-2
1991 Redskins - 14-2
1993 Cowboys - 12-4
1994 49ers - 13-3
1996 Packers - 13-3
1998 Broncos - 14-2
2000 Ravens - 12-4
2003 Patriots - 14-2

Most entries:
49ers - 3
Packers - 2
Steelers - 2
Cowboys - 2

By decade:
60's - 1
70's - 5
80's - 4
90's - 5
00's - 2

Interestingly, the only team on the list that wasn't favored in the Super Bowl was the '72 Dolphins.

[Denbrnc]

I've got 17 possible options.

All of these teams won the Super Bowl. Just regular season record is listed.

1966 Packers - 12-2
1972 Dolphins - 14-0
1975 Steelers - 12-2
1976 Raiders - 13-1
1977 Cowboys - 12-2
1978 Steelers - 14-2
1984 49ers - 15-1
1985 Bears - 15-1
1986 Giants - 14-2
1989 49ers - 14-2
1991 Redskins - 14-2
1993 Cowboys - 12-4
1994 49ers - 13-3
1996 Packers - 13-3
1998 Broncos - 14-2
2000 Ravens - 12-4
2003 Patriots - 14-2

Most entries:
49ers - 3
Packers - 2
Steelers - 2
Cowboys - 2

By decade:
60's - 1
70's - 5
80's - 4
90's - 5
00's - 2

Interestingly, the only team on the list that wasn't favored in the Super Bowl was the '72 Dolphins.

Good list, but I wouldn't have the 00 Ravens and 03 Pats on here, or any of the Patriot SB winners, for that matter.

[football junkie]

The "greatest" team doesn't necessarily win the Superbowl every year:

the 1998 Minnesota Vikings were 15-1, had the top overall offense and sixth overall defense. I think that team deserves mention. Speaking of the Vikings, how about some of Bud Grant, Fran Tarkentan and the Purple People Eaters' teams?

Or how about the Buffalo Bills teams from 1990 till 1993? Playing those teams was a horrific experience, unless it was the Superbowl.

Oh yeah, and how about those 2007, 16-0, New England Patriots? They're a David Tryee fluke catch away from being the "greatest team ever!"

[whiteyball1977]

Sure, there are great teams that didn't win it all. Actually, I came up with this list for another message board and I knew it would be easier to deal with some posters over there if it were just limited to SB champs.
For the sake of discussion, I would just use teams that actually won it. There's enough subjectivity involved already.