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

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
You are asking us what we are smoking? Beating teams by 3 points isn't what Dallas or the 49ers did to people. You can argue about people being "bigger" but the rules have changed a lot to acclimate that body type to football now. Before, it wasn't quite like that. Besides, Tom Brady is a very average QB, and he didn't have a great coordinator(who is gone now to ND) and a good back he'd be up shizzle crizzle.
 

torpid

Lifer
Sep 14, 2003
11,631
11
76
Not sure about the cowboys of the 90's just because it was so recent, but all the other great dynasties, if playing under the current rules, would be trounced. The game has evolved significantly since even the 80's. No way would the packers of the 60's have a remote chance. They were much smaller, were probably not well sculpted athletes since they had to work regular jobs and didn't have the same medical technology, and all they did was run. Unitas was the usher of the new age QB, but since then QBs have been getting better and better. Any modern day 3rd string QB is probably better than anyone from the 60's.

Also, the game is much faster now than before. Just compare college football to the NFL and you'll see the type of difference. I imagine that the current college game is not noticeably slower than the pros were in the 70s. Though I doubt that any college team would win against them.
 

KK

Lifer
Jan 2, 2001
15,903
4
81
It's not that the Patriots are great, its that all the other teams suck.
 

jEnus

Senior member
Jun 22, 2004
867
0
76
I think this deserves the ownage thread of february. Your Pats may be good for a Highschool team, but they do not compare to the teams that you mention of those eras.

 

tfinch2

Lifer
Feb 3, 2004
22,114
1
0
Alright I think I'm done with this thread (unless something else sparks me.) I guess I am going to have to learn to excuse Boston fans for the excessive gloating when winning because besides the Celtics of the 60's-80's, Boston fans are not used to winning at anything.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Todays good teams either have a great offense or a great defense. The Pats have both that's why they are able to win like they do. Back in the 80's when the Niners were the cream of the crop they played other teams that also had both great O and D. Same is true for the Dallas Crackwagon of the 90's
 

NeoV

Diamond Member
Apr 18, 2000
9,504
2
81
I have to admit that I didn't read this entire thread.....but saying the Pat's are better than any team in the history of pro football is a bit far-fetched - the Dallas teams of the early 90's were loaded on offense and defense, and in terms of size/speed, Dallas was one of the first teams to emphasize team speed, and they had huge linemen to boot - so physically they wouldn't have any problems playing in today's NFL...the further back you go, the smaller the average sizes get, and if you are talking about imaginary matchups of this year's New England team against the best teams of the 60's, 70's and 80's, you can't ignore the size/strength differences.....Jack Lambert and the great "steel curtain" defenses would pretty much get run over by almost any NFL team today - that isn't a knock on them, it's simple physics.

If you want to talk about complete teams, I'd argue that this isn't the most complete team in NFL history, and again those Dallas teams come to mind, the 85 Bears team comes to mind, and some of the Montana led 49 teams were very good as well....and you can't ignore the Pitt teams either.

Tom Brady is very good - anyone who thinks otherwise shouldn't be commenting in football threads.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
Ok how about we compare offenses of today and yesterday... lets take the 90's cowboys and the colts of today, widely considered two of the greatest offenses of their respective eras. Now lets compare Troy Aikman to Peyton Manning (considered the greatest qb ever, but is owned by the patriots, gg):

Here's troy aikman's stats:

+---------------------------------------+-----------------+
| Passing | Rushing |
+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+
| Year TM | G | Comp Att PCT YD Y/A TD INT | Att Yards TD |
+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+
| 1989 dal | 11 | 155 293 52.9 1749 6.0 9 18 | 38 302 0 |
| 1990 dal | 15 | 226 399 56.6 2579 6.5 11 18 | 40 172 1 |
| 1991 dal | 12 | 237 363 65.3 2754 7.6 11 10 | 16 5 1 |
| 1992 dal | 16 | 302 473 63.8 3445 7.3 23 14 | 37 105 1 |
| 1993 dal | 14 | 271 392 69.1 3100 7.9 15 6 | 32 125 0 |
| 1994 dal | 14 | 233 361 64.5 2676 7.4 13 12 | 30 62 1 |
| 1995 dal | 16 | 280 432 64.8 3304 7.6 16 7 | 21 32 1 |
| 1996 dal | 15 | 296 465 63.7 3126 6.7 12 13 | 35 42 1 |
| 1997 dal | 16 | 292 518 56.4 3283 6.3 19 12 | 25 79 0 |
| 1998 dal | 11 | 187 315 59.4 2330 7.4 12 5 | 22 69 2 |
| 1999 dal | 14 | 263 442 59.5 2964 6.7 17 12 | 21 10 1 |
| 2000 dal | 11 | 156 262 59.5 1632 6.2 7 14 | 10 13 0 |
+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+
| TOTAL | 165 | 2898 4715 61.5 32942 7.0 165 141 | 327 1016 9 |
+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+

Here's Manning's stats'

+---------------------------------------+-----------------+
| Passing | Rushing |
+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+
| Year TM | G | Comp Att PCT YD Y/A TD INT | Att Yards TD |
+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+
| 1998 ind | 16 | 326 575 56.7 3739 6.5 26 28 | 15 62 0 |
| 1999 ind | 16 | 331 533 62.1 4135 7.8 26 15 | 35 73 2 |
| 2000 ind | 16 | 357 571 62.5 4413 7.7 33 15 | 37 116 1 |
| 2001 ind | 16 | 343 547 62.7 4131 7.6 26 23 | 35 157 4 |
| 2002 ind | 16 | 392 591 66.3 4200 7.1 27 19 | 38 148 2 |
| 2003 ind | 16 | 379 566 67.0 4267 7.5 29 10 | 28 26 0 |
| 2004 ind | 16 | 336 497 67.6 4557 9.2 49 10 | 25 38 0 |
+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+
| TOTAL | 112 | 2464 3880 63.5 29442 7.6 216 120 | 213 620 9 |
+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+


Holy crap, i had no idea Troy Aikman sucked so bad, the most number of td's he scored in a season was 23, and the rest of his career, he doesn't even come close to that. His TD to interception ratio is horrible, and he has only average passing yards stats. He can't even hold tom brady's jock (brady has scored 28 td's twice already). But i digress: My point is that if the pats can hold the colts to just 3 points at the height of peyton manning's amazing career, do you know what the pats would do to aikman if we played him? We would gear our offense to shutting down emmitt smith and force aikman to try to beat the pats and then proceed to sack the sh1t outa troy. HAH, good luck. I had absolutely no idea how overrated aikman was until i saw his stats. Thank you pro-football-reference.com! :)
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
Originally posted by: KK
Originally posted by: Phokus
blah, blah, blah

You fail to realize that a team is more than one position. :roll:

No crap, that's why i said the pats would focus on stopping emmitt smith. QB is the most important position anyway, i mean, who is the guy who delivers the ball to his receivers? :disgust:

For a qb with such 'awesome' offensive linemen, aikman sure is a mediocre qb.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,357
8,446
126
trollin' trollin' trollin'
trollin' trollin' trollin'
trollin' trollin' trollin'
trollin' trollin' trollin' rawhide... rawhide!
 

PingSpike

Lifer
Feb 25, 2004
21,747
579
126
Originally posted by: Phokus
4) pingspike agreed with me :)

"I think he's right. Athletics have just advanced a lot. Those teams may have been the best for their time, but because of advances outside the realm of possibilties back then...if they were teleported through time, they'd likely get their asses handed to them.

At one time a 4 minute mile was impossible right? Now isn't it expected?

The same can be applied to any sport.
"

To be fair, I don't really know what I'm talking about. And the 90s wasn't that long ago so I'm actually not sure the advances arguement would hold there.
 

Pr0d1gy

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2005
7,774
0
76
If you gave those old teams the same steroids & facilities the Pats have they would trounce the Pats. They just had alot more talent collectively than any team will have under a salary cap. I remember when Deion Sanders was bouncing between the 49ers and Cowboys back in the 90's...I mean come on dude. Deion branch would catch nothing with PrimeTime covering him in his prime, sorry Pats fans but it's true.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
Originally posted by: ElFenix
trollin' trollin' trollin'
trollin' trollin' trollin'
trollin' trollin' trollin'
trollin' trollin' trollin' rawhide... rawhide!

At least i'm basing my assertions with facts and logic, which is something nobody else is doing in this thread :)
 

tfinch2

Lifer
Feb 3, 2004
22,114
1
0
You think Troy Brown, Deion Branch, David Givens, and David Patten (medicore WRs) are gonna get open against Darren Woodsen, Brock Marion, and Deion Sanders when Charles Haley, Leon Lett, Bill Bates, Russel Maryland, and Tony Tolbert are rushing Tom Brady? LOL! Give it up, the PATS ARE GOOD, BUT THEY ARE NO MATCH FOR THE COWBOYS! 90% AGREE, STFU AND HAVE A NICE DAY!
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
Originally posted by: tfinch2
You think Troy Brown, Deion Branch, David Givens, and David Patten (medicore WRs) are gonna get open against Darren Woodsen, Brock Marion, and Deion Sanders when Charles Haley, Leon Lett, Bill Bates, Russel Maryland, and Tony Tolbert are rushing Tom Brady? LOL! Give it up, the PATS ARE GOOD, BUT THEY ARE NO MATCH FOR THE COWBOYS! 90% AGREE, STFU AND HAVE A NICE DAY!

They did pretty good against the steelers (number 1 defense) and the eagles (3 pro-bowl defensive backs) :)
 

tfinch2

Lifer
Feb 3, 2004
22,114
1
0
Originally posted by: Phokus
We would gear our offense to shutting down emmitt smith and force aikman to try to beat the pats and then proceed to sack the sh1t outa troy.

You sure would have you sub in your offense for a defense that would get eaten alive. Call me when the Pats hang a double cinco in the Super Bowl instead of winning by 3 points.
 

Kev

Lifer
Dec 17, 2001
16,367
4
81
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Todays good teams either have a great offense or a great defense. The Pats have both that's why they are able to win like they do. Back in the 80's when the Niners were the cream of the crop they played other teams that also had both great O and D. Same is true for the Dallas Crackwagon of the 90's

crackwagon.... hahahaah
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
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.


The Patriots wouldn't even show up if they had to play the old school Steelers, Packers, or Raiders for that matter.

Those old guys were dangerous mofos.

 

KK

Lifer
Jan 2, 2001
15,903
4
81
overall, I don't think anybody ever had to defend why any of those other teams were dynastys like you have to about the pats. Not to say they aren't one, but of all the dynasty teams they currently would probably come in last.
 

torpid

Lifer
Sep 14, 2003
11,631
11
76
What? I don't know anyone who thinks peyton manning is the best QB ever. I know a few who think brett favre is, but manning? No way.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,357
8,446
126
Originally posted by: Phokus
Originally posted by: ElFenix
trollin' trollin' trollin'
trollin' trollin' trollin'
trollin' trollin' trollin'
trollin' trollin' trollin' rawhide... rawhide!

At least i'm basing my assertions with facts and logic, which is something nobody else is doing in this thread :)
no, you're just ignoring everyone else's facts and logic