Best team ever?

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 5:06 pm

drummer wrote:It's so obvious that you completely missed it . Here is two examples of instability translated to the field :

The Raiders .

The Niners .

No, those are examples of stupidity translated to the field. Every era has bad owners.

ChargerMike · Post by **ChargerMike** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 5:08 pm

...I've always been a "chicken first" guy, but there is some merit to the "egg" argument.

drummer · Post by **drummer** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 5:14 pm

BSmack wrote:
drummer wrote:It's so obvious that you completely missed it . Here is two examples of instability translated to the field :

The Raiders .

The Niners .
No, those are examples of stupidity translated to the field. Every era has bad owners.

Yeah , and were those bad owners successful ?

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 5:17 pm

drummer wrote:
BSmack wrote:
drummer wrote:It's so obvious that you completely missed it . Here is two examples of instability translated to the field :

The Raiders .

The Niners .
No, those are examples of stupidity translated to the field. Every era has bad owners.
Yeah , and were those bad owners successful ?

Just what the hell is your major malfunction? If you have something to say, just spit it out. Unless your an Egyptian statue, stop trying to speak in riddles.

drummer · Post by **drummer** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 5:59 pm

BSmack wrote:
drummer wrote:
BSmack wrote: No, those are examples of stupidity translated to the field. Every era has bad owners.
Yeah , and were those bad owners successful ?
Just what the hell is your major malfunction? If you have something to say, just spit it out. Unless your an Egyptian statue, stop trying to speak in riddles.

Alright I'll just come out and say it :

You are a complete and utter dumbfuck for thinking that having 300 lb players makes a better league than Franchise stablity .

Did I make that clear enough for you ?

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 6:13 pm

drummer wrote:Alright I'll just come out and say it :

You are a complete and utter dumbfuck for thinking that having 300 lb players makes a better league than Franchise stablity . Did I make that clear enough for you ?

You made it infinitely clear that you have no business attempting to talk football with those who know what the fuck they are talking about.

First, it is not just that the players are bigger. They are also faster, better fed, better trained and spend more time devoted to the sport of football than players from the 60s, 70s and 80s could ever possibly comprehend. There is no aspect of the game of football that relates to the skill of individual players that has not advanced in the past 30 years. It really is THAT FUCKING SIMPLE.

Now, if you want to talk about "franchise stability", please go on. And while your at it, tell me if Carroll Rosenbloom trading franchises with Bob Irsay helped either team. Or maybe you can tell me about the stability the Cleveland Brown enjoyed with 5 head coaches during the 70s? Or you could speak about the value that the Packers received by holding on to Bart Starr's 52-76 record for NINE YEARS?

There have always been inept franchises and there will always BE inept franchises. And, for the most part, they will always lose more than they win. Show me something that proves franchises are somehow less stable now that they are worth an average of 9 figures a piece and we can start talking about wether or not that is detrimental to the game of football.

drummer · Post by **drummer** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 6:34 pm

BSmack wrote:
drummer wrote:Alright I'll just come out and say it :

You are a complete and utter dumbfuck for thinking that having 300 lb players makes a better league than Franchise stablity . Did I make that clear enough for you ?
You made it infinitely clear that you have no business attempting to talk football with those who know what the fuck they are talking about.

First, it is not just that the players are bigger. They are also faster, better fed, better trained and spend more time devoted to the sport of football than players from the 60s, 70s and 80s could ever possibly comprehend. There is no aspect of the game of football that relates to the skill of individual players that has not advanced in the past 30 years. It really is THAT FUCKING SIMPLE.

Now, if you want to talk about "franchise stability", please go on. And while your at it, tell me if Carroll Rosenbloom trading franchises with Bob Irsay helped either team. Or maybe you can tell me about the stability the Cleveland Brown enjoyed with 5 head coaches during the 70s? Or you could speak about the value that the Packers received by holding on to Bart Starr's 52-76 record for NINE YEARS?

There have always been inept franchises and there will always BE inept franchises. And, for the most part, they will always lose more than they win. Show me something that proves franchises are somehow less stable now that they are worth an average of 9 figures a piece and we can start talking about wether or not that is detrimental to the game of football.

Here you go with the " You don't know football " card .

You know , they make bigger , faster trains now . But what happens when you put a dumbfuck engineer behind it ? You get a trainwreck , just like you .

Sure the players are more athletic than in the past . Guess what ? They also don't play in leather helmets anymore .

I pointed out the Raiders , because if you look at that roster , they have some Big , Fast , players on it . But , the Raiders are on thier 3rd coach sice Gruden , and don't have Bruce Allen in the FO anymore . Both are in TB , with good ownership .

The 1999-2002 SB Rams were " The Greatest Show on Turf " . Look at what happened since . Of course , the infighting in the FO , and the Martz turmoil didn't have anything to do with their demise , right ? They do have some talent on that team , those fast , modern players you talk about .

I dunno , maybe I can't talk football with you . You don't seem to know anything about it .

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 6:45 pm

drummer wrote:Here you go with the " You don't know football " card .

It plays well when you try to assert that the level of play is worse now than it was in the past.

You know , they make bigger , faster trains now . But what happens when you put a dumbfuck engineer behind it ? You get a trainwreck , just like you.

But they DON'T put dumbfucks in charge of NFL teams. To buy into an NFL team, you have to have the kind of money that only some serious business skill will allow you to gain. These guys are anything but dumb.

Sure the players are more athletic than in the past . Guess what ? They also don't play in leather helmets anymore.

A total non sequiter. Get back to me when you have a point.

I pointed out the Raiders , because if you look at that roster , they have some Big , Fast , players on it . But , the Raiders are on thier 3rd coach sice Gruden , and don't have Bruce Allen in the FO anymore . Both are in TB , with good ownership.

Ironic then that Al Davis is one of those old school NFL owners back from the good old days of the 70s.

The 1999-2002 SB Rams were " The Greatest Show on Turf " . Look at what happened since . Of course , the infighting in the FO , and the Martz turmoil didn't have anything to do with their demise , right ? They do have some talent on that team , those fast , modern players you talk about.

What's your point? The Ram's spot at the top of the food chain was taken by someone else. Just as the Browns were supplanted by someone else when their era of stability ended. This shit happens all the time and is not indicitive of anything besides your ability to cite individual examples in an attempt to prove an overarching point.

In short, you are spinning your tires.

I dunno , maybe I can't talk football with you . You don't seem to know anything about it .

I've jerked more football knowledge into my socks than you will ever have. Now move along and let the big people talk about football.

Uncle Fester · Post by **Uncle Fester** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 6:55 pm

Getting back to the "best team ever..."

My vote is for the '85 Bears.

Headhunter · Post by **Headhunter** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 7:07 pm

BSmack wrote:But they DON'T put dumbfucks in charge of NFL teams.

That's what I've been trying to say...

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 7:23 pm

Headhunter wrote:
BSmack wrote:But they DON'T put dumbfucks in charge of NFL teams.
That's what I've been trying to say...

Bidwell is the exception that proves the rule. And even he managed to swindle the taxpayers for a billion dollar new crib.

So tell me again. How stupid is he?

Headhunter · Post by **Headhunter** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 7:52 pm

The ability to grift on a large scale does not equate to wins on the Football field. Tell me you knew.

Bidwell may have made lots of money, but he most definitely fits Drummer's example of a bigger, faster train with a dumbfuck behind the wheel.

If you're here to make the assertion the the Arizona Cardinals are anything but a trainwreck, we can go ahead and queue up the pile-on music and get the histrionics out of the way right now.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 7:59 pm

Headhunter wrote:The ability to grift on a large scale does not equate to wins on the Football field. Tell me you knew.

Bidwell may have made lots of money, but he most definitely fits Drummer's example of a bigger, faster train with a dumbfuck behind the wheel.

If you're here to make the assertion the the Arizona Cardinals are anything but a trainwreck, we can go ahead and queue up the pile-on music and get the histrionics out of the way right now.

Bidwell's father was a dumbfuck too. The team has been family owned by dumbfucks since 1932. So how does a dynasty of dumbfucks in Arizona make old time football "better" than the modern game?

Yea, let's cue up that pile on music. You're about to get dogfucked if you go down this road.

Headhunter · Post by **Headhunter** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:28 pm

You really can't be this fucking stupid, can you?

Do you really think, at any point in this thread, that when someone mentioned "Old Time football" being better, that the Cardinals even creeped into their head?

When I think Football dynasty, I don't think Cardinals.

When I think brilliant business men, who built their own personal fortune, Bill Bidwell is not even on the list. A slightly retarded jackass who was a member of the lucky sperm club, inherited the Cardinals. He didn't buy them with " the kind of money that only some serious business skill will allow you to gain".

Go ahead and get started on that Dogfucking because I "claim" that the Cardinals are a trainwreck and Bidwell is an idiot.

I"m waiting.

drummer · Post by **drummer** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:47 pm

Headhunter wrote:You really can't be this fucking stupid, can you?

Do you really think, at any point in this thread, that when someone mentioned "Old Time football" being better, that the Cardinals even creeped into their head?

When I think Football dynasty, I don't think Cardinals.

When I think brilliant business men, who built their own personal fortune, Bill Bidwell is not even on the list. A slightly retarded jackass who was a member of the lucky sperm club, inherited the Cardinals. He didn't buy them with " the kind of money that only some serious business skill will allow you to gain".

Go ahead and get started on that Dogfucking because I "claim" that the Cardinals are a trainwreck and Bidwell is an idiot.

I"m waiting.

BSmack is that fukkin' stupid .

Really fukkin' stupid .

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 9:05 pm

Headhunter wrote:When I think Football dynasty, I don't think Cardinals.

Neither does anybody else. But that didn't stop the two of you from pointing to the Bidwells as an example of the decline of modern football when in fact their presense permeated the game even during your so called "glory years".

Headhunter · Post by **Headhunter** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 9:14 pm

I never pointed to the Bidwells as a decline of anything. You can't get any lower than rock bottom, which is where The Cardinals have resided my entire lifetime.

I also never stated anything about the decline of Football. Print this thread out and see if you can find an adult to read it to you.

I stated that Bidwell is an example of a dumbfuck running a modern franchise. Which refutes your claim that you can't be a dumbfuck running a Pro franchise, because, as you stated "you have to have the kind of money that only some serious business skill will allow you to gain".

So either prove Bidwell is not a gibbering dumbass, or shut the fuck up. And just to save your keyboard the inevitable abuse by using the argument that he got a billion dollar stadium. Holding a town hostage with the threat of relocation doesn't exactly spell out genius. It speaks more to the lack of active synapses in Phoenix than anything else.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 9:28 pm

Headhunter wrote:I never pointed to the Bidwells as a decline of anything. You can't get any lower than rock bottom, which is where The Cardinals have resided my entire lifetime.

I also never stated anything about the decline of Football. Print this thread out and see if you can find an adult to read it to you.

That happens to be the subject this thread has evolved into. You you prefer we talk about the Cardinals?

I stated that Bidwell is an example of a dumbfuck running a modern franchise. Which refutes your claim that you can't be a dumbfuck running a Pro franchise, because, as you stated "you have to have the kind of money that only some serious business skill will allow you to gain".

Liek I said, the Bidwells are the exception that proves the rule. Most family owned teams understand that you need to back away and let the football minds do their jobs. You know, families like the Maras, Rooneys and Irsays. Even old time football guys like Ralph Wilson and Lamar Hunt know that it is no good to be overruling the football guys on a regular basis. The Bidwells choose to stick their noses into the day to day football affairs of the team and have sucked because of it. Furthermore, they are fucking cheapskates as well. In this day of "parity" they still find a way to suck.

Shall we next talk about JTR as an example of the average level of acting talent in Hollywood?

Dumbass · Post by **Dumbass** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 10:50 pm

BSmack wrote:there will always BE inept franchises. And, for the most part, they will always lose more than they win.

Are you writing speeches during your spare evening time?
I think I have heard some of your work before.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 10:57 pm

Dumbass wrote:
BSmack wrote:there will always BE inept franchises. And, for the most part, they will always lose more than they win.
Are you writing speeches during your spare evening time?
I think I have heard some of your work before.

Bush has some of the brightest minds in the business writing his speeches. Thanks for the compliment.

Dumbass · Post by **Dumbass** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 11:27 pm

BSmack wrote:Bush has some of the brightest minds in the business writing his speeches. Thanks for the compliment.

So how did you get in there with all the fucked up ones?

Did you take the opening left by Monica Lewinski?

Has GW's filling of that hole satisfied your career goals?

PWNSORD, IN THE HOLE, ROTFC!!!

drummer · Post by **drummer** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 11:30 pm

Just looking at the Niners , a team I've rooted for since 1977 , in order for them to re-build into a contender , they have to get a solid plan first , starting with the Ownership , Front Office ( which is still not entirely in place ) , and then the Coaching . They went Coach first , and now head into FA and the draft with no real GM , yet . The Ownership post Eddie D. has fucked this team good . York doesn't have a real plan in place . He doesn't have football people he listens to , just Exectutive with MBAs , like Paragg Marathe , who doesn't have a football background in the least . York is on his 3rd coach , Nolan , who has already lost his OC after his first year . So a new OC is in place , and the offensive side of the ball has to start learning a new scheme all over again .

That's just last year . Dennis Erickson came in after Mooch was canned ( due to infighting in the FO ) , and after his first year with Mooch's coaching staff , he then was able to hire his own staff . Guess what . Donahue fucked him and the team by gutting the offense . What happened that season was a 2-14 record .

Compare that to the Walsh/Seifert/DeBartolo regime .

You can trace the Niner's demise all the way to JJ Stokes deal . That was the FO's fault . There have been numerous 1st round busts since .

They choose from the same pool of talent the rest of the NFL chooses from . The difference is clearly the consistency of those 3 important components mentioned . They all have to be on the same page , and winning starts from the top down , not from the players up . Some teams win despite that , but you don't see a consistent winner with shitty Management and Coaching .

I pointed out the GSOT Rams , because they had the chance of becoming a Dynasty . But just look at what happened between Martz , Shaw , and Armey . Georgia is a dumbfuck , and all she cares about is the $$$$ .

You can also look at Snyder , Jerrah , and Davis , all who have meddled and undermined thier coaches . They choose from the same talent pool too .

There has been more coaching movement these past few seasons that I've seen than before . If you don't think that affects the league in general , than you should look a little more deeper . I've already posted the tenure's of some of the most successful coaches . Just look up the years when they were successful .

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 11:37 pm

drummer wrote:There has been more coaching movement these past few seasons that I've seen than before.

Got anything to back that shit up?

Try showing some facts instead of your uninformed opinions.

drummer · Post by **drummer** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 11:41 pm

BSmack wrote:
drummer wrote:There has been more coaching movement these past few seasons that I've seen than before.
Got anything to back that shit up?

Try showing some facts instead of your uninformed opinions.

Look , you didn't even know that Shanahan was once an OC with the Niners .

I don't need to try help you figure out what you don't know .

That's your fukkin' problem .

Dumbass · Post by **Dumbass** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 12:36 am

BSmack wrote:
Got anything to back that shit up?

Try showing some facts instead of your uninformed opinions.

Heard it so many times in response to your own posts...

I will begin charging soon for future lessons.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 12:55 am

drummer wrote:Look , you didn't even know that Shanahan was once an OC with the Niners . I don't need to try help you figure out what you don't know . That's your fukkin' problem .

What the fuck are you talking about?

I guess we can assume that since you are left with nothing but ad hommeniems, that this debate is over and this weekend is ready to begin.

drummer · Post by **drummer** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:06 am

BSmack wrote:
drummer wrote:Look , you didn't even know that Shanahan was once an OC with the Niners . I don't need to try help you figure out what you don't know . That's your fukkin' problem .
What the fuck are you talking about?

I guess we can assume that since you are left with nothing but ad hommeniems, that this debate is over and this weekend is ready to begin.

Well , maybe that's all you can comprehend .

And even that's a stretch .

Dumbass · Post by **Dumbass** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:50 am

Miller...poot.

When you want to step up to a man's brew....

Mississippi Neck · Post by **Mississippi Neck** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 3:25 pm

Every offseason on this board, this same tired question is trotted out. And every year I have the same response...The Cowboys of the early Nineties were the best of all time. Need proof? BARRY FUCKING SWITZER coached them to a Super Bowl win. Case closed. What do I win?

WhatsMyName · Post by **WhatsMyName** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 3:35 pm

George Seifert might've coached the best team of all-time to a title his first year. Switzer and Seifert both rode the coattails of their predecessors.

drummer · Post by **drummer** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 4:46 pm

WhatsMyName wrote:George Seifert might've coached the best team of all-time to a title his first year. Switzer and Seifert both rode the coattails of their predecessors.

Gotta give Seifert more credit than that . He was with Walsh from the beginning , and put together some great defenses .

upstart · Post by **upstart** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 4:52 pm

The Best team of the 2000s

Your New England Patriots.....Next years' Super Bowl Champions

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 5:26 pm

upstart wrote:The Best team of the 2000s

Your New England Patriots.....Next years' Super Bowl Champions

Hard to argue against 3 Super Bowls in 4 years. But they have some serious issues to deal with this offseason if they are going to repeat.

Not betting against them. Or for them.

upstart · Post by **upstart** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 7:07 pm

With the cap wows the Colts have,I see the Steelers
,Pats and Cincy as top dogs in the AFC for the next few years

Mississippi Neck · Post by **Mississippi Neck** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 8:38 pm

BSmack wrote:
Hard to argue against 3 Super Bowls in 4 years. .

We agree.

Sin,

Team of the 90's (Cowboys)

al? · Post by **al?** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 10:44 pm

That parrot pic is hilarious.

still laughing. Jerry?

Jeff in Tucson · Post by **Jeff in Tucson** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 4:12 am

Hey fellas. I'm new here so I won't come charging in like a bull and act like I own the joint, cuz I don't. I also understand you guys have been posting here and at other boards together for 10+ years, which is another reason not to walk in here like a braying jackass. With that said, one thing I know pretty well is football.

It seems to me there's two predominant arguments in this thread, the best team for a single year and the best team over a period of years. Both are a matter of opionion, because there's no way for these teams to play each other to decide who's the best on the field, a la the BCS. So, for the best team for a single year, how can that be chosen? You can make an argument for the 72 Dolphins, after all they went undefeated. The 85 Bears, who dominated in every aspect of the game, offense, offensive line, passing, rushing, special teams, and that defense was damn near impossible to score on. The 91 Giants, another team with a fantastic defense and powerful offense. The 92 Cowboys, the 94 49ers, the 98 Broncos, etc, etc, you could make a legitimate argument for em all.

Then we get to the great teams over a period of years, the Lions of the 50's, the Packers and Browns of the 60's, the Steelers of the 70's the 80's 49ers, the 90's Cowboys. All great teams who maintained their consistency for a number of years. But then we start to do someting just as futile, comparing one era to another, free agency, cap space, steroids, outrageous salaries. How would the teams of the 50's, 60's and 70's dealt with this, on and on. There's already 4 pages of debate about it, albeit heavily laced with smack

Most players in the early years had to have a second job in the offseason to make ends meet. Many served in the military. Could today's players deal with that, being the crying, prima donnas they are? Maybe, maybe not. Somethng else to consider.

So, there's my opinion on the matter, and I'm aware that it and a token might get me into the zoo. I just wanted to shed a different light on the matter. And I'm also quite aware of the fact that as a newbie, I'm gonna get cracked on, hazed, and everything else in between, so have at it fellas, I can take it. Good to be here. Hope I don't get banned

Mississippi Neck · Post by **Mississippi Neck** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 4:29 am

Jeff in Tucson wrote:Hey fellas. I'm new here so I won't come charging in like a bull and act like I own the joint, cuz I don't. I also understand you guys have been posting here and at other boards together for 10+ years, which is another reason not to walk in here like a braying jackass. With that said, one thing I know pretty well is football.

It seems to me there's two predominant arguments in this thread, the best team for a single year and the best team over a period of years. Both are a matter of opionion, because there's no way for these teams to play each other to decide who's the best on the field, a la the BCS. So, for the best team for a single year, how can that be chosen? You can make an argument for the 72 Dolphins, after all they went undefeated. The 85 Bears, who dominated in every aspect of the game, offense, offensive line, passing, rushing, special teams, and that defense was damn near impossible to score on. The 91 Giants, another team with a fantastic defense and powerful offense. The 92 Cowboys, the 94 49ers, the 98 Broncos, etc, etc, you could make a legitimate argument for em all.

Then we get to the great teams over a period of years, the Lions of the 50's, the Packers and Browns of the 60's, the Steelers of the 70's the 80's 49ers, the 90's Cowboys. All great teams who maintained their consistency for a number of years. But then we start to do someting just as futile, comparing one era to another, free agency, cap space, steroids, outrageous salaries. How would the teams of the 50's, 60's and 70's dealt with this, on and on. There's already 4 pages of debate about it, albeit heavily laced with smack Most players in the early years had to have a second job in the offseason to make ends meet. Many served in the military. Could today's players deal with that, being the crying, prima donnas they are? Maybe, maybe not. Somethng else to consider.

So, there's my opinion on the matter, and I'm aware that it and a token might get me into the zoo. I just wanted to shed a different light on the matter. And I'm also quite aware of the fact that as a newbie, I'm gonna get cracked on, hazed, and everything else in between, so have at it fellas, I can take it. Good to be here. Hope I don't get banned

I guess you're opinion on this is that you can't decide. Nice.

Welcome aboard.

drummer · Post by **drummer** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 4:32 am

WGAF about his opinion .

HOW ABOUT HIS AVATAR !!!!

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 4:44 am

It's a good post, and welcome, Jeff.

I was 11 yrs old when Miami went unbeaten, so I don't have a good perspective on that.
I do understand that their schedule was soft, but hey, all a team can do is beat whoever is put up for them to play.
Undefeated is undefeated.

For single season excellence, I think the '85 Bears are the best I've seen.
Start to finish, they just absolutely kicked ass that year.

For era, I'd take the 70's Steelers.