- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 6/6/17 at 8:15 pm to David Ricky
quote:
quote:
The stats say it all and Rypien
Lol stopped reading here.
Know how I know you are not Dexter Manley?
Posted on 6/6/17 at 8:19 pm to ThePTExperience1969
I don't know about that, but I think Joe Gibbs is the best coach in NFL history. He took mediocre quarterbacks and won big. He even came back to the Skins in the mid-2000's and made the playoffs twice. GOAT coach.
Posted on 6/6/17 at 9:20 pm to msudawg1200
Gibbs was great. He won three Super Bowls with three very different teams and three different styles and with thee different QBs, two of which could never and would never come close to the Hall of Fame.
I'm not sure how you can say this team or that team's schedule was objectively more or less difficult when comparing different years. There is simply no measure that could accurately determine that statement.
I'm not sure how you can say this team or that team's schedule was objectively more or less difficult when comparing different years. There is simply no measure that could accurately determine that statement.
Posted on 6/6/17 at 9:25 pm to Tigerpaul1969
Yes there is, it's called SOS and SRS and it's determined and presented by statistical databases using algorithms that are actually quite simple to comprehend.
Posted on 6/6/17 at 9:29 pm to Tigerpaul1969
quote:
Gibbs was great. He won three Super Bowls with three very different teams and three different styles and with thee different QBs
Yeah.
I use to think that a few of their Super Bowl titles were "less than" because in '82 and '87 each season was a strike shortened season.
I just never really considered the optimistic side of that argument.
after all its easier to be a critic than appreciate something.
Posted on 6/6/17 at 9:36 pm to ThePTExperience1969
I understand that. But some computer or math guy came up with the algorithm. What does that have to do with actual on field experiences? How do you know some 5-11 team from last year wasn't a tougher out than an 11-5 team from 2009? Because of some algorithm?
Posted on 6/6/17 at 9:36 pm to ThePTExperience1969
Call me a homer, but I'm going to say the 1998 Denver Broncos were one of the best NFL teams I ever saw.
John Elway
Shannon Sharpe
Rod Smith
Terrell Davis
Bill Romanowski
Steve Atwater
Neil Smith
Ed McCaffrey
Tom Nalen
Trevor Pryce
Jason Elam
John Elway
Shannon Sharpe
Rod Smith
Terrell Davis
Bill Romanowski
Steve Atwater
Neil Smith
Ed McCaffrey
Tom Nalen
Trevor Pryce
Jason Elam
Posted on 6/6/17 at 9:38 pm to ThePTExperience1969
They're not even the best Redskins team. 1983 team was better but had a brutal Super Bowl
Posted on 6/6/17 at 9:45 pm to VADawg
How can a team be better if they didn't win the Super Bowl? To constitute a best pro football team of all-time, you win the championship you don't runner-up bc runner-ups being better than world champs make zero sense logically. Also to that incredibly subjective point about "on-field experiences," those stats make sense bc they relate to each other and use simple math to help determine whether a team was dominant or not given their competition.
Posted on 6/6/17 at 9:50 pm to ThePTExperience1969
1989 San Francisco 49ers.
Their playoff performance was the most dominant in NFL history. They outscored their opponents 126-26 and Joe Montana passed for 800 yards, 11 TDs, 0 INTs, while completing 78.3% of his passes.
They finished 14-2 in the regular season, with their two losses coming by a combined five points, and absolutely annihilated the Broncos in the Super Bowl (55-10 the final score).
The team was stacked. Eight players made the All-Pro team that year and Joe Montana was your NFL MVP and your Super Bowl MVP.
Their playoff performance was the most dominant in NFL history. They outscored their opponents 126-26 and Joe Montana passed for 800 yards, 11 TDs, 0 INTs, while completing 78.3% of his passes.
They finished 14-2 in the regular season, with their two losses coming by a combined five points, and absolutely annihilated the Broncos in the Super Bowl (55-10 the final score).
The team was stacked. Eight players made the All-Pro team that year and Joe Montana was your NFL MVP and your Super Bowl MVP.
This post was edited on 6/6/17 at 9:52 pm
Posted on 6/6/17 at 9:58 pm to RollTide1987
Yup, acknowledged them as my personal favorite but not better than the 91 Redskins bc they had a weaker SOS, lower SRS, and lower MOV. Yes, they have the impressive postseason with the 126-26 but the 91 Redskins had a postseason MOV of 20 pts in addition. The facts indicate the 1991 Redskins were better, as mad as it makes me to say.
Posted on 6/6/17 at 9:59 pm to ThePTExperience1969
quote:
How can a team be better if they didn't win the Super Bowl? To constitute a best pro football team of all-time, you win the championship you don't runner-up bc runner-ups being better than world champs make zero sense logically.
Well that's not true...in a sport like football at ALL levels.
It's a one-off, one game...you can have a bad game...or have a really bad matchup - one team is designed to beat everyone else but you and the other is designed to beat mostly you.
Great teams have lost so-called "title games" all the time. Baseball and basketball measure the totality of the team in a 4-game series.
Football does not. College is the biggest joke crowning a champion but the NFL isn't all that much better.
We've never had a "National" Champion in CFB. A lot of great teams. But like the Heisman, we've had "the most hyped team be champion for that year." We've had the "fans claim National champion" - the sportswriters claim "National champion" - the ESPN first take National Champion...some "computer in Omaha National Champion" - Team that gets the most publicity and therefore the most votes "National Champion."
This post was edited on 6/6/17 at 10:02 pm
Posted on 6/6/17 at 10:01 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
and absolutely annihilated the Broncos in the Super Bowl (55-10 the final score).
yes.. they kicked their arse.
that was the first Super Bowl I have any vivid memories of.
but I mean.. Denver was embarrassed several times in the Super Bowl during the 80's.
the Redskins scored 35 points on them in one quarter a few years before their Super Bowl matchup.
Posted on 6/6/17 at 10:05 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
PLEASE, please tell me how a team can be determined the best if they didn't win the CHAMPIONSHIP of that particular profession which acknowledges them as the BEST? That makes literally zero sense bc if you're the best team you win the championship, that's how sports works it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.
Posted on 6/6/17 at 10:18 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
Before the BCS existed, there was a concept called consensus national champion which therefore determined the national champion. A system like the BCS or playoff didn't exist then, so the recognized adjudicators of the championship were those entities until a more computerized system was implemented to resolve any controversies the dissenting public may present and therefore appease those who took exception to it. Thus, it evolved to the playoff and so on and so forth.
Posted on 6/6/17 at 10:24 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:
We've never had a "National" Champion in CFB. A lot of great teams. But like the Heisman, we've had "the most hyped team be champion for that year." We've had the "fans claim National champion" - the sportswriters claim "National champion" - the ESPN first take National Champion...some "computer in Omaha National Champion" - Team that gets the most publicity and therefore the most votes "National Champion."
that is my biggest beef with College Football. I mean I still love it but in recent years I've been irritated at the selection process. It feels like a popularity contest most of the time.
I get it.
but I don't always agree with it.
quote:
Football does not.
its been hit and miss but I'd agree that a single game doesn't always determine who the better team is.
I still feel like the Bills were the better team in 1990 but that the Giants were better coached in preparation for that game. The Bills had beaten the Giants earlier that year so its not a stretch to say it.
Phil Simms and Jim Kelly got hurt in that game too (regular season).
Posted on 6/6/17 at 10:34 pm to ThePTExperience1969
2009 New Orleans Saints
13-0, rested their starters, finished 13-3, beat three Hall of Fame QBs in three straight games en route to win the Super Bowl.
Beat the best team in NFL history that didn't make a Super Bowl (Minnesota).
Beat the best team in NFL history that didn't win a Super Bowl (Indianapolis).
13-0, rested their starters, finished 13-3, beat three Hall of Fame QBs in three straight games en route to win the Super Bowl.
Beat the best team in NFL history that didn't make a Super Bowl (Minnesota).
Beat the best team in NFL history that didn't win a Super Bowl (Indianapolis).
Posted on 6/6/17 at 10:39 pm to St Jean The Baptiste
Honestly the 2001 St. Louis Rams, 2007 New England Patriots, or the 1983 Washington Redskins have a stronger claim than Indianapolis IMO. 1987 San Francisco 49ers are arguably the best team not to make the Super Bowl, very strong credentials they possessed.
Page 5 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News