I'm sorry, but the Patriots would crush the dynasty teams of the 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

RagingBITCH

Lifer
Sep 27, 2003
17,618
2
76
Originally posted by: Phokus
Originally posted by: RagingBITCH
Originally posted by: joshsquall
The Eagles should have won the Superbowl.

Steroids, suppliments, and higher salaries have enabled players to concentrate entirely on football and muscle development.
Still mad the Eagles lost? Don't blame you. Can't gloat like in that bookmarked thread now can you?

And to the OP - you're smoking dope. The dynasty the Cowboys had in the '90s would dismantle the Pats.

Heh, the patriots defense would take away the cowboys' number one strength (completely stop emmit smith in his tracks), and would force troy aikman to win the game. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. :)

You still had Irvin, Harper, Novacek, and then Emmitt and the Moose coming out of the backfield to catch. You're still pwn3d. Besides, the O line of the Cowboys in the heyday was the most feared O line in football. You'd stomp all over the Pats.

On the D - we had solid corners in Smith and Sanders, Woodson and Marion, Norton, Maryland, Henning, Haley, Jeffcoat, etc. Cowboys all over the Pats. It'd be like your skinny white ass in prison dropping the soap.
 

cavemanmoron

Lifer
Mar 13, 2001
13,664
28
91
Originally posted by: SampSon
Originally posted by: Phokus
Originally posted by: tfinch2
Are you saying that they would beat the Cowboys? If you haven't heard they only won their 3 superbowls by a field goal, either at the buzzer or not.

Dallas 52 Buffalo 17
Dallas 30 Buffalo 13
Dallas 27 Pittsburgh 17

THREAD OVER.

Oh please, those two buffalo wins were when they were in decline... at the tail end of their four straight superbowl losses :roll:
No other team will ever make it to 4 superbowls in a row, not even the patriots.

Yeah, 0-4-4 rules!! Uh, i guess... :(
Bills fan here.:eek:
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,357
8,446
126
Originally posted by: Phokus
Originally posted by: ElFenix
there is nothing worse than a boston fan. first they whine about never winning anything, and then when they win something they can't shut up about it.

Hmm, you're from texas, must be sour grapes from a dallas fan :p :)

yeah i'm a dallas fan in houston :roll:

i'd give you one try to guess my loyalties, but i bet you'd screw that up
 

Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: Phokus
Originally posted by: ElFenix
there is nothing worse than a boston fan. first they whine about never winning anything, and then when they win something they can't shut up about it.

Hmm, you're from texas, must be sour grapes from a dallas fan :p :)

yeah i'm a dallas fan in houston :roll:

i'd give you one try to guess my loyalties, but i bet you'd screw that up
I'll go first.

Detroit Lions!
 

Pacfanweb

Lifer
Jan 2, 2000
13,149
57
91
I'd take the Bills that lost 4 Super Bowls to beat these Patriots. The Bills had the misfortune of running up against the 'Boys a couple of times.

The league was much more balanced back then. More competition. NFC was strong, AFC was fairly strong. The 'Niners weren't done yet.
Houston was good. Then you had the 'Boys and the Bills. Plus the Steelers.
Now, New England had to go through Indy, who will never beat them when it counts, and a fluke Steelers team that had a rookie who showed his age the last two playoff games.
And the NFC is just pitiful.
I salute the Pats for what they've done, but to say they'd beat all the other dynasties is a joke. Let them dominate a Super Bowl a few times, then we'll talk about whether they could beat the "Boys or the 'Niners. Or for that matter, the Redskins under Joe Gibbs.
Go back much further, and I agree....teams from the 70's and older, if you somehow transported them to the present day while they were in their prime, would get stomped by today's teams.
 

wyvrn

Lifer
Feb 15, 2000
10,074
0
0
Man the OP has got to be the biggest fanboy I have ever seen here.

The Dallas teams in the 90's had so much depth, that NE would not stand a chance against them. I mean you had 4 starting quality DTs running in there, three double digit sack DEs, a fast and talented LB core, Darren Woodson at safety. On offense, the Cowboys' line is probably the top 3 ever. The Patriots this year do not even come close.

The 80's 49'er teams had the best WR and QB to ever live, and some other very very good players.

The Patriots don't have the talent levels of past teams due to the salary cap era. It might be close due to differences in size and speed versus the 60 and 70 teams, but I definately think the 90s Cowboys would smash the Patriots.

I like the Patriots though, rooted for them the last 4 years. I think they have a great team.
 

nitsuj3580

Platinum Member
Jun 13, 2001
2,668
14
81
Originally posted by: Tom
What kind of retarded concept is it to pretend that today's athletes could travel throught time and keep whatever physiological benefits they get from training, coaching advances, medicine ?

but in your pretend world the athletes of yesterday wouldn't benefit from the same scientific advances ?


it makes no sense. To have any sort of validity you have to compare teams from different eras, as though they were actually in the same era. So the size of the 1970's Steelers would be compared to players of their day, and if you want to imagine them moving forward to todays era, then you'd put them in the same relative position, ie, if they were faster, stronger than the average in 1974, which they were, then naturally if you brought them forward they would be faster and stronger than the average player today too.

Or if you go back in time, then you would look at the 2005 Patriots as they would have been back then, smaller, etc.

Otherwise you aren't comparing teams at all, all you are doing is measuring scientific advances, not sports teams.


was going to make the same argument but you summed it up very nicely :)
 

miniMUNCH

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2000
4,159
0
0
Originally posted by: zbalat
Originally posted by: bigalt
Originally posted by: MDE
'85 Bears would own the Pats

even if they were only 3 inches tall

Agreed!

1985 Bears>*.* as far as the best single season team goes.

The 1985 Bears were amazing...The Cowboys in the early 90's were amazing...the Niners had some truly great squads...the 1995 squad was particularly nasty IMO because the D was really good that year.

Look at the 1994-5 49ner squad:

WR - Jerry Rice (ProBowl in 94 and/or 95 = PB), John Taylor
TE - Brent Jones(PB)
OT - Steve Wallace (PB), Harris Barton (PB)
OG - Jesse Sapolu (PB), Derrick Deese (PB'ed many times since then)
C - Bart Oates (PB)
QB - Steve Young (PB)
RB - Ricky Watters(no PB but a great RB for the West Coast O), William Floyd (No PB but a bitchin' fullback)

DT - Dana Stubblefield (PB), Bryant Young (PB)
DE - Charles Haley, Charles Mann, Richard Dent (all three of these guys Pb'ed in the past or future many times)
LB - Ken Norton Jr. (PB), Gary Plummer (PB), Lee Woodall (PB)
Safety - Merton Hanks (PB), Tim McDonald (PB)
CB - "Neon Deon" (PB), Eric Davis (PB)


The above is probably the best starting 22 on O and D ever assembled
 

Legendary

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2002
7,019
1
0
Originally posted by: Tom
What kind of retarded concept is it to pretend that today's athletes could travel throught time and keep whatever physiological benefits they get from training, coaching advances, medicine ?

but in your pretend world the athletes of yesterday wouldn't benefit from the same scientific advances ?


it makes no sense. To have any sort of validity you have to compare teams from different eras, as though they were actually in the same era. So the size of the 1970's Steelers would be compared to players of their day, and if you want to imagine them moving forward to todays era, then you'd put them in the same relative position, ie, if they were faster, stronger than the average in 1974, which they were, then naturally if you brought them forward they would be faster and stronger than the average player today too.

Or if you go back in time, then you would look at the 2005 Patriots as they would have been back then, smaller, etc.

Otherwise you aren't comparing teams at all, all you are doing is measuring scientific advances, not sports teams.

Quoted for correctness.
 

olds

Elite Member
Mar 3, 2000
50,071
744
126
Originally posted by: toekramp
i just came in here to laught at you. hahaha. k bye

I concur. The OP needs to put down the crack pipe.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
I'm partial to the Saints myself and think the Patriots are a great team, one for the ages even, but still think you're dead wrong. You must not have been around to see just how dominant some of the dynasty teams were at their peaks. The '85 Bears and '89 49ers could have won by whatever point totals they wanted in the Super Bowl.

Let me put in into terms you might understand. In just one Super Bowl appearance (XXIV), the 49ers scored one less TD (8) than the Patriots have scored in all 3 of their Super Bowl wins put together (9). The 49ers scored 2 TD's per quarter in each and every one of the four quarters against the Broncos that year. They set 40 Super Bowl records that game.

BTW, you also have to remember that the Bears and Niners beat pretty good teams in the Patriots and Broncos which could have given the modern incarnation of the Patriots a rough go of it in their own right. The Niners had some consistently stiff competition that the Pats really haven't faced in teams like the Redskins and Giants during their dynasty period as well. Those teams could and would go on to dominate individual years themselves and always provided a stiffer challenge in their era than do teams like Pittsburgh and Indianapolis nowadays.

Sorry dude, but you if you're picking Tom Brady and co. over Joe Montana, Jerry Rice, Ronny Lott, Roger Craig, Brent Jones, etc etc etc, then I would want to take the other side of that bet.
 

Gibsons

Lifer
Aug 14, 2001
12,530
35
91
Originally posted by: miniMUNCH
Originally posted by: zbalat
Originally posted by: bigalt
Originally posted by: MDE
'85 Bears would own the Pats

even if they were only 3 inches tall

Agreed!

1985 Bears>*.* as far as the best single season team goes.

The 1985 Bears were amazing...The Cowboys in the early 90's were amazing...the Niners had some truly great squads...the 1995 squad was particularly nasty IMO because the D was really good that year.

Look at the 1994-5 49ner squad:

WR - Jerry Rice (ProBowl in 94 and/or 95 = PB), John Taylor
TE - Brent Jones(PB)
OT - Steve Wallace (PB), Harris Barton (PB)
OG - Jesse Sapolu (PB), Derrick Deese (PB'ed many times since then)
C - Bart Oates (PB)
QB - Steve Young (PB)
RB - Ricky Watters(no PB but a great RB for the West Coast O), William Floyd (No PB but a bitchin' fullback)

DT - Dana Stubblefield (PB), Bryant Young (PB)
DE - Charles Haley, Charles Mann, Richard Dent (all three of these guys Pb'ed in the past or future many times)
LB - Ken Norton Jr. (PB), Gary Plummer (PB), Lee Woodall (PB)
Safety - Merton Hanks (PB), Tim McDonald (PB)
CB - "Neon Deon" (PB), Eric Davis (PB)


The above is probably the best starting 22 on O and D ever assembled

uh... Haley was playing for the Cowboys in '94. ;)

imo, the best 9ers team was when they had Montana, Craig and Rathman in the backfield. Craig was underrated in his prime imo. oh they had that Rice guy, too.

 

PowerEngineer

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 2001
3,566
736
136
It's funny how every year the fans of the winning Super Bowl team try to lay claim to being the best team ever. Frankly, I'll stick up for Lombardi's Packer teams of the 1960's. They were an amazing collection of hard-working football players who played under tougher conditions with much poorer equipment and medical care while earning five-figure salaries. If we took football back to that era, I suspect that those Packers would still dominate today's teams. But, of course, I am a Packer fan...

:)
 

blues008

Golden Member
Feb 2, 2001
1,727
0
76
It's always tough to compare teams from different eras, but this is from ESPN's page 2:

The combined regular-season record of the New England opponents was 40-8. Based on regular-season records of opponents, that makes this the the most difficult Super Bowl title in NFL history. The previous best combined regular-season record of opponents on the way to a Super Bowl title was the 1969 Kansas City Chiefs, at 34-7-1. Seven teams have won the Super Bowl facing opposing teams that averaged better than a .750 winning percentage. They are:

2004 New England Patriots, .833
1969 Kansas City Chiefs, .821
1967 Green Bay Packers, .810
1990 New York Giants, .792
1976 Oakland Raiders, .774
2001 New England Patriots, .771
1972 Miami Dolphins, .762


http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=schatz/list/050207
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
I really don't like these comparisons. I'm a pats fan, but let's be honest, the game that the Packers or Steelers played is NOT the same game the Patriots play. There were no contact rules. Pass interference? Pleeeeeeeeeeeeease. Roughing the passer? Get outta here.

Players back in the day were smaller, not as fast, and not as well developed as players today. Face it, you cannot accurately say ANYTHING about the Patriots compared to teams 30 years ago except compare the quality of play in the NFL. Ie - we can see who might have been better based on how well they did compared to their peers.

Please though, don't run around saying that the Pats would get stomped by the Steelers or Packers. They would if we played 1960s or 1970s football, but they would win on penalties alone in 2004 football.
 

Phoenix86

Lifer
May 21, 2003
14,644
10
81
Originally posted by: Phokus
Originally posted by: tfinch2
LOL! You did not prove anyone wrong in this thread. If you started a poll right now the general consensus would still be that the Pats would lose to the teams of old.

Pfft, only because i called out so many teams :) Obviously fans of those teams would have a huge bias and would disagree with me no matter what :)

Pffft, and I didn't need to click you profile to tell where you are from. No bias here folks, move along...

The pats are a good team, but they are not the best things since sliced bread. Can't you leave good enough alone? Your really looking like a jaded fan just trying to shove this opinion down everyones throat. People have made a *good enough* argument that it would be a challenging game could the dynasty era team play, yet you think pats>>>>>>>* :roll:
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
Originally posted by: glenn1
I'm partial to the Saints myself and think the Patriots are a great team, one for the ages even, but still think you're dead wrong. You must not have been around to see just how dominant some of the dynasty teams were at their peaks. The '85 Bears and '89 49ers could have won by whatever point totals they wanted in the Super Bowl.

Let me put in into terms you might understand. In just one Super Bowl appearance (XXIV), the 49ers scored one less TD (8) than the Patriots have scored in all 3 of their Super Bowl wins put together (9). The 49ers scored 2 TD's per quarter in each and every one of the four quarters against the Broncos that year. They set 40 Super Bowl records that game.

BTW, you also have to remember that the Bears and Niners beat pretty good teams in the Patriots and Broncos which could have given the modern incarnation of the Patriots a rough go of it in their own right. The Niners had some consistently stiff competition that the Pats really haven't faced in teams like the Redskins and Giants during their dynasty period as well. Those teams could and would go on to dominate individual years themselves and always provided a stiffer challenge in their era than do teams like Pittsburgh and Indianapolis nowadays.

Sorry dude, but you if you're picking Tom Brady and co. over Joe Montana, Jerry Rice, Ronny Lott, Roger Craig, Brent Jones, etc etc etc, then I would want to take the other side of that bet.


Comparing the 2004 patriots to the 1989 49ers (whom you are referring to):

As for this season, the combined record of the Patriots? playoff opponents is an amazing 40-8, the most difficult Super Bowl run of all time. The 1989 49ers did not play anyone better than 11-5; the Patriots did not play anyone worse than 12-4. They are the only team on this list to beat a 15-1 team..

The patriots held the number 1 scoring offense (colts) to 3 points... THREE POINTS AGAINST THE SO-CALLED GREATEST QUARTERBACK EVER!. The patriots score 41 points on the NUMBER ONE DEFENSE.

Look how the 49ers beat that year in the playoffs:

1989 Minnesota Vikings (divisional round)
Record: 10 - 6 - 0

1989 Los Angeles Rams (championship round)
Record: 11 - 5 - 0

1989 Denver Broncos (superbowl)
Record: 11 - 5 - 0

Wow, the 1989 49ers blew out crap teams, congrats!
 

Kev

Lifer
Dec 17, 2001
16,367
4
81
Originally posted by: tfinch2
Are you saying that they would beat the Cowboys of the 90's? If you haven't heard they only won their 3 superbowls by a field goal, either at the buzzer or not.

Dallas 52 Buffalo 17
Dallas 30 Buffalo 13
Dallas 27 Pittsburgh 17

THREAD OVER.

No chance in hell they beat the Cowboys of the 90's. I'm afraid the "tuck rule dynasty" just wouldn't be able to keep up.

And I think any team today would be able to dominate or at least compete with the best teams of the 60's and 70's. But who cares?