It's OK to admit that the quality of teams in the NFL sucks these days compared to pre-salary cap days.
Also, teams like the Packers and Saints, and yes, the Colts with Manning, are completely dominant offensively, but I believe the defensive rules where you get flagged for breathing on someone is a factor in that, which makes it hard to compare eras. Brees is going to shatter Marino's yardage record, but is Drew Brees better than Dan Marino was? I'd say no. He's great, but not that great. If you plugged Marino into today's game he's throw for 50 TDs every year and would have several rings, unless he was stuck on a total crap team.
Everyone sees a team like the Packers doing what they're going and envy kicks in and they try to devalue it. The Cowboys and 49ers of the 90s probably did lose the occasional game they shouldn't have. KC is not as bad as they're being made out to be. They've looked awful at times, but they've looked pretty darn good at times. They got a new coach that week and came out and played the game of their lives and the Packers finally got distracted and didn't come out ready. It happens.
My junior year, our high school baseball team lost one game all year before going on the win the state championship (and the #1 ranking in the country from USA Today). That one loss was to Piqua. We traveled north and just weren't ready that day for whatever reason. They weren't a good team and would have been destroyed most any other day. It happens at all levels.
This Packers team is 13-1 and the defending super bowl champs for a reason. The NFL has more talent now than it ever has. It might distributed more evenly, but there are still dominant teams and this Packers team is one of them. Devalue it if you want, but I believe all these arguments being made are rubbish.
Grape works as a soda. Sort of as a gum. I wonder why it doesn't work as a pie. Grape pie? There's no grape pie. - Larry David
Sorry, but the Packers are a byproduct of the proliferation of the spread offense and the NFL's desire to use rule changes to encourage high scoring, low impact games.
They're working the current system better than any other team, and they're probably the first dynasty of the current version of the NFL, but they simply don't match up historically with other great teams that could play the run and the pass on both sides of the ball.
Just my opinion, though.
24 Years and Counting...
I guess I don't have a copy of the list of things required to be considered a dominant team. They won 19 games in a row, including a super bowl. And during that stretch they pretty much destroyed most of the teams they played. How not having a certain type of player changes that is beyond me. I didn't realize football could only be dominated with a single formula.
I think they'd matchup just fine historically. I don't think there are many defenses historically that could slow down their passing attack. Show me a "great" team of the past that never had a one game blip where they didn't play well.
I agree, MWM. Historically great teams aren't great because they played a certain way, they're great because they won. A lot. As the winning formula changes, teams change with it, as they should.
Not all who wander are lost
Let me add this -- defense matters. Always will. It's primarily the offensive balance between running and passing that's different versus 20-30 years ago. Simply put, it no longer takes a stud running back or even a better-than-competent running game to be a dominant team. The best illustration of that: Working backwards from today, go down the list of Super Bowl winners and see how many years back you go before the winning team had a Hall of Fame-caliber running back, or a running back won the game's MVP award. Then compare that to how important the quarterbacks are to winning.
Not all who wander are lost
lost at home to a 3-6 Rams team that was led by Jim Everett and would go on to finish 6-10.
The next year they lost to a 3-6 Falcons team. (In fairness - and I did a double take when I saw this - Aikman must have been hurt because it looks like that Cowboys team was QBed by Bernie Kosar. I have no memory of that.)
Don't forget the next year (in what was - sadly - one of the highlights for Bengals fans in the mid-'90s) when they ALMOST lost to a horrible, winless Bengals teams with third-string quarterback Jeff Blake.
In fact, the Packers are guaranteed to finish with as good a record as any of those Cowboys teams, as only one of them won more than 12 games (in 1992, when they finished 13-3).
And I bet if I had 5 more minutes I could find similar losses for those 49ers teams. If I recall, the 1988 team that beat the Bengals only barely slipped into the playoffs.
I agree those teams were very dominant, but we have a tendency to think things were so much better years ago. All teams have bad games, even the legendary Cowboys and 49ers teams. For my money, the most dominant team I've ever seen is the 2007 Patriots, who just happened to have their bad game at the worst possible time.
The NFL is awesome right now, is the bottom line.
I don't really see the point of comparing them to previous eras. Maybe they'd be terrible in other eras, maybe not. They're built for the way the NFL is now. If they'd be bad in other eras then good teams from previous eras may struggle in this one. Right? I don't know, just seems impossible to determine.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I just spoke to my good friend Donald Driver, who has played for a few years, and he assures me that the 2010 -2011 Packers are pretty good. He said there is no need to give back last years Lombardi trophy.
The best football team ever was the 62 Packers ( about 10 HOFs) and they lost a game to a team quarterbacked by a guy named Milt Plum.
I hate the Steelers but IMO the greatest NFL team of all time may have been the 1978 Steelers who went 14-2 in the regular season and went on to win the Super Bowl. Of their two defeats one came at the hands of a Bengals team that only won three other games all season.
Last edited by RedsBaron; 12-20-2011 at 09:57 PM.
"Hey...Dad. Wanna Have A Catch?" Kevin Costner in "Field Of Dreams."
As I've said before, a pile of crap can looks great if it's sitting next to a bunch of other of piles of crap.