T1B

You can't cross compare eras, but which team was the best within it's own era?

Also, assuming teams of the past had the same access to knowledge, technology as current players, how would some of the old SB champs fare against the current Steelers?

The current Steelers are in the bottom 1/4 of Super Bowl winners.........and likely lower than that.

It's hard for me to vote against the Steelers of the 70s as the finest team ever.
Pick a year, I guess.

poptart wrote:The current Steelers are in the bottom 1/4 of Super Bowl winners.........and likely lower than that.

It's hard for me to vote against the Steelers of the 70s as the finest team ever.
Pick a year, I guess.

The current Steelers have gone 31-7 over the last two years.

That's not too shabby.

93/94 49er's :wink:

BSmack wrote:

poptart wrote:The current Steelers are in the bottom 1/4 of Super Bowl winners.........and likely lower than that.

It's hard for me to vote against the Steelers of the 70s as the finest team ever.
Pick a year, I guess.

The current Steelers have gone 31-7 over the last two years.

That's not too shabby.

Over the past 2 years, the dominant team in football has been the Patriots. They were the best team in the league this year too and their own mistakes did them in.

I think the 49ers went like 16 years with 10 or more wins from the 80's and 90's. Wouldn't that merit being better than Pittsburgh?

Also, what about the Browns up through the early 60's?

'05 USC

WhatsMyName wrote:

BSmack wrote:

poptart wrote:The current Steelers are in the bottom 1/4 of Super Bowl winners.........and likely lower than that.

It's hard for me to vote against the Steelers of the 70s as the finest team ever.
Pick a year, I guess.

The current Steelers have gone 31-7 over the last two years.

That's not too shabby.

Over the past 2 years, the dominant team in football has been the Patriots. They were the best team in the league this year too and their own mistakes did them in.

I think the 49ers went like 16 years with 10 or more wins from the 80's and 90's. Wouldn't that merit being better than Pittsburgh?

Also, what about the Browns up through the early 60's?

What about the Browns? You're telling me that Joey Porter wouldn't make mincemeat of a 270 LBS offensive tackle? That the Steelers 300 lb offensive linemen wouldn't maul the 250 to 270 lb Browns defenders?

Give me a break. If the 1966 Packers or Browns showed up in Indianapolis as prospective players last week, they would have been laughed out of the combine. Even the 1980s 49ers teams would have a tough time in today's NFL.

BSmack wrote:

WhatsMyName wrote:

BSmack wrote: The current Steelers have gone 31-7 over the last two years.

That's not too shabby.

Over the past 2 years, the dominant team in football has been the Patriots. They were the best team in the league this year too and their own mistakes did them in.

I think the 49ers went like 16 years with 10 or more wins from the 80's and 90's. Wouldn't that merit being better than Pittsburgh?

Also, what about the Browns up through the early 60's?

What about the Browns? You're telling me that Joey Porter wouldn't make mincemeat of a 270 LBS offensive tackle? That the Steelers 300 lb offensive linemen wouldn't maul the 250 to 270 lb Browns defenders?

Give me a break. If the 1966 Packers or Browns showed up in Indianapolis as prospective players last week, they would have been laughed out of the combine. Even the 1980s 49ers teams would have a tough time in today's NFL.

Or are we

Christ, you're a fucking tard.

Raydah James wrote:Christ, you're a fucking tard.

The 1984 49ers would be considered small in an era where every NFL team sports O lines averaging 300 lbs. Please just try to step to this.

mvscal wrote:If those players went through the same dietary and training regimens and techniques that modern players use, they would be equally large and fast.

Needless to say, you're a gibbering dumbfuck.

But they didn't. So they were not.

You can make up all the excuses you want. Who's to say the 77 Raiders wouldn't have all washed out on drug tests?

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:

mvscal wrote:If those players went through the same dietary and training regimens and techniques that modern players use, they would be equally large and fast.

Needless to say, you're a gibbering dumbfuck.

But they didn't. So they were not.

If they showed up at today's combine they sure as shit would have, dumbfuck.

Which is why you look like a fucking tard guessing what old time teams would have or would not have looked like under today's system.

And while we're at it, how about you tell me how those old teams would have done under the cap?

Bri, W'sMN stated his premise, that teams of the past would have access to all areas of possible improvement that today's teams do.

poptart wrote:Bri, W'sMN stated his premise, that teams of the past would have access to all areas of possible improvement that today's teams do.

Let us also assume they have the same hinderances. You know, like the cap and drug testing.

It's a bullshit question.

WhatsMyName wrote:You can't cross compare eras, but which team was the best within it's own era?

This isn't a bullshit question.

BTW BSmack, before you start pinning the drug accusations on the Raiders, you might want to check your own backyard first.

mvscal wrote:You certainly do, you fucking idiot.

Awwww, your vagina still sore?

How do you think Deacon Jones would have fared without the head slap?

Would Too Tall Jones have been worth a damn in the age of 6'5" QBs?

Jim Brown, stud RB, or just another brusier of a fullback never given a chance to share running duties with the feature back?

Simply put, there's no way to say how players from the past would fare "if only they were given modern training reimens. The only thing to do is to take them for what they were WHEN they were. Which would be grossly inferior to the teams of today.

WhatsMyName wrote:

WhatsMyName wrote:You can't cross compare eras, but which team was the best within it's own era?

This isn't a bullshit question.

BTW BSmack, before you start pinning the drug accusations on the Raiders, you might want to check your own backyard first.

Looks like Courson is pinching one off.

Find me a team back then that wasn't using. That's my fucking point. They would have ALL failed drug tests to the point that nobody would have been able to field a 53 man roster.

BSmack wrote:

Raydah James wrote:Christ, you're a fucking tard.

The 1984 49ers would be considered small in an era where every NFL team sports O lines averaging 300 lbs. Please just try to step to this.

Teams back then also had continuity of the roster .

The 1984 Ram team could beat a lot of 2006 teams . You think the 2006 AZ Cards would beat them ?

Raydah James wrote:Christ, you're a fucking tard.

No shit?
I didn't know that. In fact, this may come as a complete shock to the entire board. :wink:

Fuck me, do we still have morons that do not understand how you can not compare players builds and what not between decades.

Um, you really think those players from 1966 are going to look the same in this day and age if they were in their 20s and 30s still?

drummer wrote:

BSmack wrote:

Raydah James wrote:Christ, you're a fucking tard.

The 1984 49ers would be considered small in an era where every NFL team sports O lines averaging 300 lbs. Please just try to step to this.

Teams back then also had continuity of the roster .

The 1984 Ram team could beat a lot of 2006 teams . You think the 2006 AZ Cards would beat them ?

At their size at wieghts back in 84, the 84 Rams would get slaughtered by today's Cards.

BSmack wrote:It's a bullshit question.

No, it's just beyond your comprehension.

However, we did forget the myopia factor.

BSmack wrote:

drummer wrote:

BSmack wrote: The 1984 49ers would be considered small in an era where every NFL team sports O lines averaging 300 lbs. Please just try to step to this.

Teams back then also had continuity of the roster .

The 1984 Ram team could beat a lot of 2006 teams . You think the 2006 AZ Cards would beat them ?

At their size at wieghts back in 84, the 84 Rams would get slaughtered by today's Cards.

Just because a player weighs 300 lbs. doesn't make him a better football player .

BSmack wrote: The only thing to do is to take them for what they were WHEN they were.

No that is what a simpleton like yourself can only do. You can not truly compare them even if you use your straight up approach because it is all speculation. So why not try and use your brain a little bit and speculate given the knowledge we actually have. We all know that even your pea brain can figure the stars of the past would most likely bring their heads to the next level, in the modern era to be on par with the stars of today, both physically and mentally.

This is stupid.....this is like saying that Cro-magnon man would outsmart homo-sapien.

It's called evolution. Almost every living thing goes through it. This is a dynamic world we live in.

No way to properly determine a reference point.

Jackie Slater , the HOF Offensive Lineman with the 1984 LA Rams , is 6'4" , and was listed @ 278 lbs .

Compare him to any of the 300lb O-lineman of the Texans .

Back to the topic at hand.

The 92-94 Cowboys.

:D

Late 80's to early 90's.......The New York Football Giants.

2 Super Bowls, one of the best defenses in NFL history and ownage of the NFC east, a tough division back when the AFC was the JV.

It's hard to say for me really , being that I've never seen Lombardi's Packers .

Of course , I think the Niners of the late 80's ( the team that almost went to 3 consecutive Super Bowls , losing the last bid in a tough game , with a bad fumble ) are the best team . Dallas winning 3 of 4 was impressive too , and I think if the Niners kept Charles Haley ( letting him go to Dallas was worse than Oakland letting Gruden go to TB , because it really bit them in the ass more than once ) , they would have stole another one from Dallas .

Dumbass wrote:No that is what a simpleton like yourself can only do. You can not truly compare them even if you use your straight up approach because it is all speculation. So why not try and use your brain a little bit and speculate given the knowledge we actually have. We all know that even your pea brain can figure the stars of the past would most likely bring their heads to the next level, in the modern era to be on par with the stars of today, both physically and mentally.

Yes, and then the dynamics of the modern NFL would guarantee that those teams would not exist in their previous forms and that many of the techniques those players used would not be as effective. For example, Bob Hayes would simply not be as dominant a reciever he was back in the day simply because there would be guys playing today who were just as fast as he was. Jim Brown would not be nearly the overpowering RB he was back then because a 235 lb running back is not going to bowl over a 250 lb linebacker quite as easily as he did the 225 lb linebackers he faced back then.

Simply put, the biggest influence on parity has not been the league's schedule or salary cap; it has been the evolution of the diet and fitness level of the modern player to the point where truly the truly dominant performers do not have nearly the edge that they had 30 years ago. There is not, and will never be another Steel Curtain Dynasty. And even if you took the same players the Steelers had back then and somehow morphed them into the present time and gave them all the benefits of modern technology, diet and training, they would not all 40 something of them dominate the NFL the way they did back in the 70s.

From what I've seen , football was much better in the 70's , 80's and 90's , before the Salary Cap really kicked in .

drummer wrote:From what I've seen , football was much better in the 70's , 80's and 90's , before the Salary Cap really kicked in .

On what do you base that assertion? Players today are faster, stronger, bigger, spend more time practicing and eat better and train much more intensely than ever before. How is it that they are somehow inferior to the players before them?

BSmack wrote:

drummer wrote:From what I've seen , football was much better in the 70's , 80's and 90's , before the Salary Cap really kicked in .

On what do you base that assertion? Players today are faster, stronger, bigger, spend more time practicing and eat better and train much more intensely than ever before. How is it that they are somehow inferior to the players before them?

So what ? You can't tell me this past season was more epic than anything you saw in the 80's .

drummer wrote:

BSmack wrote:

drummer wrote:From what I've seen , football was much better in the 70's , 80's and 90's , before the Salary Cap really kicked in .

On what do you base that assertion? Players today are faster, stronger, bigger, spend more time practicing and eat better and train much more intensely than ever before. How is it that they are somehow inferior to the players before them?

So what ? You can't tell me this past season was more epic than anything you saw in the 80's .

Yes I can.

In many ways the players today are better.
In some ways they are not.

It is the structure of the league, the structure of the game that is woeful.

Drummer is right.
The 80s were not as good as the 70s.
90s not as good as the 80s.
00s not as good as the 90s.

I've beaten this horse enough.

BSmack wrote:

drummer wrote:

BSmack wrote: On what do you base that assertion? Players today are faster, stronger, bigger, spend more time practicing and eat better and train much more intensely than ever before. How is it that they are somehow inferior to the players before them?

So what ? You can't tell me this past season was more epic than anything you saw in the 80's .

Yes I can.

Well , before you pull that snowsled through the pile of horseshit , you , of all people forget 3 major aspects : Coaching , Ownership , and the Front Office .

Tom Landry coached the Cowboys for 18 years . Look up thier record .

Chuck Noll : 23 years .

Bill Cowher : 13 years .

Paul Brown : 12 years in Cleveland , and look up that record .

Vince Lombardi : 9 years .

Joe Gibbs first run : 11 years .

John Madden : 11 years .

Bill Walsh/George Seifert/Eddie DeBartolo : 23 years .

Now , the Niners since DeBartolo has left have had 3 coaching changes , many FO changes , and they are still on shaky ground .

Teams are lucky if thier coaches last more than 5 years . Hell , Snyder is on his 3rd HC . The Raiders are a coaching carousel . In 10 years they went through 7 coaches . Detroit is on thier 7th in less than 10 years .
The Jets are on thier 5th HC since 1993 . Miami has gone through 4 since Shula left . Dalls is on thier 4th since 1993 .

If you look at teams that have been inconsistent , going to the playoffs during a 2-3 year period , then dropping off , you would see a patter of coaches lasting around a 5-6 year period . You could also look up the FO movement as well .

Dynasties are built with ,ownership, coaching and solid management . Not creatine .

So , how many coaching changes happened this past off-season ?

Yeah , look at how many HC changes have happened since the Salary Cap was mandated too .

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:

drummer wrote:From what I've seen , football was much better in the 70's , 80's and 90's , before the Salary Cap really kicked in .

On what do you base that assertion? Players today are faster, stronger, bigger, spend more time practicing and eat better and train much more intensely than ever before. How is it that they are somehow inferior to the players before them?

They are not nearly as fundamentally sound.

And they are more injury prone too .

drummer wrote:

BSmack wrote:

drummer wrote: So what ? You can't tell me this past season was more epic than anything you saw in the 80's .

Yes I can.

Well , before you pull that snowsled through the pile of horseshit , you , of all people forget 3 major aspects : Coaching , Ownership , and the Front Office .

Tom Landry coached the Cowboys for 18 years . Look up thier record .

Chuck Noll : 23 years .

Bill Cowher : 13 years .

Paul Brown : 12 years in Cleveland , and look up that record .

Vince Lombardi : 9 years .

Joe Gibbs first run : 11 years .

John Madden : 11 years .

Bill Walsh/George Seifert/Eddie DeBartolo : 23 years .

Now , the Niners since DeBartolo has left have had 3 coaching changes , many FO changes , and they are still on shaky ground .

Teams are lucky if thier coaches last more than 5 years . Hell , Snyder is on his 3rd HC . The Raiders are a coaching carousel . In 10 years they went through 7 coaches . Detroit is on thier 7th in less than 10 years .
The Jets are on thier 5th HC since 1993 . Miami has gone through 4 since Shula left . Dalls is on thier 4th since 1993 .

If you look at teams that have been inconsistent , going to the playoffs during a 2-3 year period , then dropping off , you would see a patter of coaches lasting around a 5-6 year period . You could also look up the FO movement as well .

Dynasties are built with ,ownership, coaching and solid management . Not creatine . So , how many coaching changes happened this past off-season ? Yeah , look at how many HC changes have happened since the Salary Cap was mandated too .

Thank you for pointing out the obvious. Of course coaches were never fired before the salary cap. That is why guys like Norm Van Brocklin and Hank Bullough were coaching legends. And that Bill Walsh/George Seifert/Eddie DeBartolo guy was one hell of a stud. Wow, 23 years? He should be in the HoF.



Seriously, show me some data that coaching and ownership is a) less stable and b) that that lack of stability actualy translates to the performance on the field.

I don't think you can do it.

IMO, the negatives to today's game are a rulebook that is increasingly too complex and officals that oftentimes are unable to understand said complexities. But there is no way that the players of today are somehow more fundementaly unsound than the players of 1975.

Because the league has over-expanded there are now many starting QBs (to use just ONE example) who are not fundamentally sound.

Bunch of stiffs who would never have seen the field in '1975'........ or whenever.

poptart wrote:Because the league has over-expanded there are now many starting QBs (to use just ONE example) who are not fundamentally sound.

Bunch of stiffs who would never have seen the field in '1975'........ or whenever.

The talent pool for NFL players has also expanded. How convienent that you ignore that.

BSmack wrote:

drummer wrote:

BSmack wrote: Yes I can.

Well , before you pull that snowsled through the pile of horseshit , you , of all people forget 3 major aspects : Coaching , Ownership , and the Front Office .

Tom Landry coached the Cowboys for 18 years . Look up thier record .

Chuck Noll : 23 years .

Bill Cowher : 13 years .

Paul Brown : 12 years in Cleveland , and look up that record .

Vince Lombardi : 9 years .

Joe Gibbs first run : 11 years .

John Madden : 11 years .

Bill Walsh/George Seifert/Eddie DeBartolo : 23 years .

Now , the Niners since DeBartolo has left have had 3 coaching changes , many FO changes , and they are still on shaky ground .

Teams are lucky if thier coaches last more than 5 years . Hell , Snyder is on his 3rd HC . The Raiders are a coaching carousel . In 10 years they went through 7 coaches . Detroit is on thier 7th in less than 10 years .
The Jets are on thier 5th HC since 1993 . Miami has gone through 4 since Shula left . Dalls is on thier 4th since 1993 .

If you look at teams that have been inconsistent , going to the playoffs during a 2-3 year period , then dropping off , you would see a patter of coaches lasting around a 5-6 year period . You could also look up the FO movement as well .

Dynasties are built with ,ownership, coaching and solid management . Not creatine . So , how many coaching changes happened this past off-season ? Yeah , look at how many HC changes have happened since the Salary Cap was mandated too .

Thank you for pointing out the obvious. Of course coaches were never fired before the salary cap. That is why guys like Norm Van Brocklin and Hank Bullough were coaching legends. And that Bill Walsh/George Seifert/Eddie DeBartolo guy was one hell of a stud. Wow, 23 years? He should be in the HoF.



Seriously, show me some data that coaching and ownership is a) less stable and b) that that lack of stability actualy translates to the performance on the field.

I don't think you can do it.

IMO, the negatives to today's game are a rulebook that is increasingly too complex and officals that oftentimes are unable to understand said complexities. But there is no way that the players of today are somehow more fundementaly unsound than the players of 1975.

It's so obvious that you completely missed it .

Here is two examples of instability translated to the field :

The Raiders .

The Niners .

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:The talent pool for NFL players has also expanded. How convienent that you ignore that.

But you just said that players were bigger, stronger, faster and better.

They are. Maybe if you followed along better you would realize I was responding directly to Poptart's assertion that the NFL has "overexpanded".

Just for the record, an expanded talent pool has nothing to do with the failure to teach and master fundamentally sound football.

No, but it renders Tart's idea that the league has "overexpanded" utterly moot.

Now, if you want to talk about "fundementaly sound football", please feel free to tell me how players who played and practiced 6 months out of the year are somehow more fundementaly sound than players who train and practice YEAR ROUND.

What's that? Talking out of your ass again?

Got it.