PDA

View Full Version : Were Mike and Mike really considering Green Bay best ever?



WindyCitySteel
12-14-2011, 09:42 AM
I woke up to the conversation of which teams were the best single-season teams ever. I can only assume the talk of this year's Packers, judging by the emails they were reading, were the impetus of the conversation.

Let me end it now - no, they're not. They're the 1979 San Diego Chargers with rules that let them exploit their talent and hide their weaknesses.

flippy
12-14-2011, 10:03 AM
GB doesn't have Tim Tebow. How can this be so?

7 UP
12-14-2011, 10:04 AM
Its to early to say either way. They havent done anything yet. People were saying the 2007 Patriots were the best team ever. Now they are an afterthought.

I will say this. If the Packers go 19-0 and win the Super Bowl, with the stats they have put up along the way, then they have to be considered the greatest single season team of all time.

flippy
12-14-2011, 10:11 AM
Best ever in the pansy ball era.

It's not like they're blowing out teams every week like NE did a few years back. There have been some games they could have easily lost. NO and NYG come to mind as 2 games I've seen them win with a little good fortune.

snarky
12-14-2011, 10:19 AM
Its to early to say either way. They havent done anything yet. People were saying the 2007 Patriots were the best team ever. Now they are an afterthought.

I will say this. If the Packers go 19-0 and win the Super Bowl, with the stats they have put up along the way, then they have to be considered the greatest single season team of all time.

I disagree. It might be the best single-season team achievement. But I don't think they can be the best with the 30th ranked defense in the league. But if we are talking about the best ever in terms of lining up against one another, I don't think they qualify.

If the 76 Steelers had won the SB, I think they would be the best ever. Given that they didn't I think you are left to choose between the 72 Dolphins, the Bears, the 75 Steelers or maybe the 89 Niners (though they gave up a lot of points).

WindyCitySteel
12-14-2011, 10:24 AM
Its to early to say either way. They havent done anything yet. People were saying the 2007 Patriots were the best team ever. Now they are an afterthought.

I will say this. If the Packers go 19-0 and win the Super Bowl, with the stats they have put up along the way, then they have to be considered the greatest single season team of all time.

The 1985 Bears would violate them with a broom handle, and make them beg for more.

rpmpit
12-14-2011, 10:29 AM
If they go undefeated and win the Super Bowl, they should be considered one of the (if not the) best team ever.

We cry about stats not meaning anything as long as you win games, when we're defending the Steelers. Now that we're talking about another team, we argue that wins mean nothing because their defense blows.

Not saying I think they'll go undefeated. I don't. I'd love to get them back in the Super Bowl and get some revenge...as well as #7. But if they do win it all and not lose a game, how could you not consider them great??

The Man of Steel
12-14-2011, 10:37 AM
Best ever in the pansy ball era.
Yup. Get rid of the Mel Blount rule and then we'll see how great the Packers, Saints, and Patriots offenses really are.

steelblood
12-14-2011, 10:40 AM
Why can't they have this discussion? They currently hold the second longest win streak in modern NFL history. They are the favorite to win the Super Bowl and could very well go undefeated in doing so. Now, granted, they still have a way to go, but if they go 19-0, the 72 Dolphins would be the only other team to consider in their class.

feltdizz
12-14-2011, 12:24 PM
Best ever? No... but I'm not mad at the recognition Rodgers is getting. He waited long enough.

WindyCitySteel
12-14-2011, 02:06 PM
Best ever? No... but I'm not mad at the recognition Rodgers is getting. He waited long enough.

Me neither. He's pretty much that whole team. They're just north of Indy territory without him.

He pretty much has to play perfect for them to win. If Ben put up those numbers on a weekly basis, we'd be winning by 20+ regularly. They've only done that four times, which is a bit surprising.

RuthlessBurgher
12-14-2011, 02:20 PM
Talking heads will always argue Johnny-Come-Lately as best ever. It's what they do.

Steelgal
12-14-2011, 03:52 PM
Actually Bill Cowher is what started the whole discussion. He said over the weekend that he thought the Packers were the best team ever. I was shocked when I heard it. It's been picked up by different sports people, including Mike and Mike and Colin Cowherd. Maybe others too, but that's who I've heard so far. Cowherd aggressively disputed it on his show yesterday.

This morning Mike an Mike got on the subject and Golic really disagreed with it. Said the '78 Steelers and '85 Bears were easily better teams. Golic also said the Packers of the '60s were better than the current team. But they also played in the non-salary cap area, so it's hard to compare decades. Then they brought up other teams, Cowboys in the '90s and 49ers in '80s. It was actually a decent discussion.

Even if they go undefeated and win the Superbowl this year, I don't think they're the best team EVER. Yes, it's hard to compare teams in different decade/different rules, but I wouldn't call this years team the best. Aaron Rodgers is the reason they're so good. Take him away and there's no way their undefeated, therefore it's not the greatest TEAM.

feltdizz
12-14-2011, 04:40 PM
GB is a damn good team. Their D is suspect but opportunistic and the O is a machine. If we won 18 straight and beat a 6 time SB winner last year we would definitely have that discussion.

Not sure why Rodgers is getting all the credit.. the WR's make plays after the catch, the D gets TO's and sacks and the RB's are blue collar guys.

Take away any SB winning teams QB besides Tampa and Baltimore and you have an average team.

snarky
12-14-2011, 05:34 PM
Take away any SB winning teams QB besides Tampa and Baltimore and you have an average team.

74 Steelers? :stirpot :stirpot

Shoe
12-14-2011, 10:45 PM
If they go undefeated and win the Super Bowl, they should be considered one of the (if not the) best team ever.

We cry about stats not meaning anything as long as you win games, when we're defending the Steelers. Now that we're talking about another team, we argue that wins mean nothing because their defense blows.

Not saying I think they'll go undefeated. I don't. I'd love to get them back in the Super Bowl and get some revenge...as well as #7. But if they do win it all and not lose a game, how could you not consider them great??

I disagree with that. But I'm sure my opinion won't prevail, and they would be considered the best OAT if they were to pull it off. As someone else said earlier, I think it's as big an indictment on the "pansification" of the league than anything else--when a team with the 30th-ranked defense can not only excel, but go undefeated for a season and a half.

I would hope, that the league would then take this as a wake-up (i.e. the Mel Blount rule), and work to de-emphasize offensive football. It shows a tremendous flaw in the game AFAIC, when a team with that level of imbalance can dominate to that degree.

WindyCitySteel
12-14-2011, 11:05 PM
If they go undefeated and win the Super Bowl, they should be considered one of the (if not the) best team ever.

We cry about stats not meaning anything as long as you win games, when we're defending the Steelers. Now that we're talking about another team, we argue that wins mean nothing because their defense blows.

Not saying I think they'll go undefeated. I don't. I'd love to get them back in the Super Bowl and get some revenge...as well as #7. But if they do win it all and not lose a game, how could you not consider them great??

I disagree with that. But I'm sure my opinion won't prevail, and they would be considered the best OAT if they were to pull it off. As someone else said earlier, I think it's as big an indictment on the "pansification" of the league than anything else--when a team with the 30th-ranked defense can not only excel, but go undefeated for a season and a half.

I would hope, that the league would then take this as a wake-up (i.e. the Mel Blount rule), and work to de-emphasize offensive football. It shows a tremendous flaw in the game AFAIC, when a team with that level of imbalance can dominate to that degree.

This is what they want. Hockey moms and short attention span kids hate defense.

feltdizz
12-15-2011, 11:00 AM
If they go undefeated and win the Super Bowl, they should be considered one of the (if not the) best team ever.

We cry about stats not meaning anything as long as you win games, when we're defending the Steelers. Now that we're talking about another team, we argue that wins mean nothing because their defense blows.

Not saying I think they'll go undefeated. I don't. I'd love to get them back in the Super Bowl and get some revenge...as well as #7. But if they do win it all and not lose a game, how could you not consider them great??

I disagree with that. But I'm sure my opinion won't prevail, and they would be considered the best OAT if they were to pull it off. As someone else said earlier, I think it's as big an indictment on the "pansification" of the league than anything else--when a team with the 30th-ranked defense can not only excel, but go undefeated for a season and a half.

I would hope, that the league would then take this as a wake-up (i.e. the Mel Blount rule), and work to de-emphasize offensive football. It shows a tremendous flaw in the game AFAIC, when a team with that level of imbalance can dominate to that degree.

Their D generated 3 TO's vs us in the SB. I don't think their D is that bad... they score in bunches so their D sees the field more often.

How can a team not be considered one of the best if they have a 30th ranked D and are on an 18 game winning streak?

Until someone beats them all we can do is make excuses.

RuthlessBurgher
12-15-2011, 11:07 AM
Hockey moms and short attention span kids hate defense.

I disagree. Soccer moms hate defense. Hockey moms crave blood. :Beer

snarky
12-15-2011, 11:28 AM
Hockey moms and short attention span kids hate defense.

I disagree. Soccer moms hate defense. Hockey moms crave blood. :Beer

NASCAR dads hate right turns. :stirpot :stirpot

Potentially relevant anecdote. When I first met my wife and we would watch the Steelers together (or, more accurately, I would watch the Steelers and she would be in the room) there were a few times when the Steelers would make critical first downs and I would clap or yell or whatever. She would ask me "How many points did they get for that?" She truly thought that the only reason one would view a play as successful was because they scored some points.

This was a real 'a-ha' moment for me. Suddenly all these stupid rules that have been put in to turn this into a passing league made sense. Long time fans and people who have played the sport understand that sometimes just making a first down can be huge.

If you get the ball at your five yard line and you move it 30-35 yards and then punt, that can be a huge sequence. But for a casual fan there is little to no excitement in that. So, in order to keep the most fans interested at any one time, the rules have been tweaked to make the games "more exciting". Scroing trends back this up and I'm guessing if you looked at how tightly first downs has correlated with points over the years, you would see that the correlation has loosened (meaning the simple first down has lost some significance).

Discipline of Steel
12-15-2011, 03:42 PM
Talking heads will always argue Johnny-Come-Lately as best ever. It's what they do.

Yeah, dont worry. There will be a new best team ever in another year or two.