Team of the 00's Decade, Final standings

[The Gipper]

@josephsuxdick said:

Hmm, wonder if that "smallest point margin" thing would've mattered to you if it hadn't applied to the Steelers?

I would have probably pointed it out, yes. And, note, I did not point out that the Browns had perhaps the largest margin.

Oh you Cleveland dudes are so cute. All the ladies of the land think so, yes, thank you.

Personally I think the '70s Steelers deserve a few bonus points for being the best team ever assembled in history.

That is debatable....but, what, its OK for you to show your prejudice but not for anyone else to?

What you fail to mention is the '70s was probably the most competitive decade ever. The great Dallas teams led by Staubach were Dynasty worthy themselves. Throw in the Raiders and their awesome squads. For good measure, the Dolphins of the "only team to go undefeated" variety. Show me another decade that included that much greatness.

So you see, far from being a minus, the Steelers "narrow margin" is in fact a testimony to their greatness.

I don't think I failed to mention it at all. I think by mentioning the narrowness of the margin I did exactly what you suggest. The Steelers had tremendous competition during that decade.

What "all-time" great team did the Packers have to face in their Super Bowls?

They had to face the defending champions Philadelphia Eagles with Chuck Bednarik et al. They had to face the Cleveland Browns with Jim Brown et al. They had to face the New York Giants with Y.A. Tittle, Frank Gifford, Sam Huff etc. They actually did have some serious competition for their titles. You are only thinking of the two SBs they played in that decade, not the three other titles they had to fight hard fights to win.

What all-time great team did San Francisco ever face in their Bowls -- the Bengals? Ha ha.

Maybe the Bengals were pretty darn good. They did nearly lose to the in each game. Maybe the 49ers were just that tremendous.

What all-time great team did New England ever have to face in their Super Bowls? The Rams who had won a SB a year of so earlier.

Now compare that with the Steelers having to beat the great '70s Dallas team, not once but TWICE. And having to beat the awesome Raiders teams more than once to qualify for the Bowl. No other Dynasty had to climb a mountain like that.

Maybe, in fact you are simply overestimating the "greatness" of those opponents. The Raiders and Cowboys were good, no doubt. I am not necessarily prepared to say they were better than the teams the Packers or the 49ers disposed of on their way to their titles.

Now you see the true picture of greatness. Yeah no wonder those other Dynasties had greater margins: they didn't have to face such a high level of competition. So yes, DUH, the Steelers would probably win by the narrowest margin -- it just means they faced superior competition. The '70s Cowboys won a couple Bowls -- I wonder, did Green Bay, San Francisco, Dallas or New England ever face teams in the Bowl who'd taken multiple Bowls in their respective decades? I don't think so.

Yes, in fact, they did. The 49ers had to best both the Giants and the Redskins to win their titles, both of whom won multiple Super Bowls in times coterminus with the 49ers SB run. Their biggest struggle was getting past their own conference, just as the Steelers biggest struggle may have been getting past the Raiders and Dolphins. Those Giants and Redskins by no means take a back seat to the Cowboys and Raiders of the 70s....and don't forget, the 49ers had to also surmount those same Tom Landry Cowboys who were still going strong in the early 80s. You do recall which team "The Catch" was made against.

Not to mention the Steelers took second in the '00s, has any other team placed first in one decade, and second in another? (How about pointing out THAT one, Mr. Observant?) That's an achievement in itself.

Did you not read my article? That other team would be The Cleveland Browns....OOPS. Oh, and "How bout dem Cowboys"? They won the 90s and were second in the 70s. And both the Packers and the Bears WON two separate decades...DOH!

All in all, more evidence of who truly has the all-time greatest franchise.

Yep: Packers, Giants, Bears, Browns,

Thanks for posting this one! It's been very instructive.

It has been, for you.

[TheClevelandSound]

OWNED.

[The Gipper]

@josephsuxdick said:

You wish.

The Gip lost as soon as he came out with this one:

I didn't lose a damn thing. I came out with a numerical methodology to give a Team of the Decade, for each Decade. The last time I looked that methodology came out saying the Steelers were the Team of the Decade. So just what did I lose and what is it about that you are arguing with?

Perhaps, you are wanting to extrapolate the matter, and argue "WHICH" team of the decade is the team of all decades? Is that what you want to do? And of course your prejudice will come up with things to support your own personal conclusion, right? You want to argue that the 70s Steelers are the best team of any decade. All I am saying is: That is debatable.

I don't just say so -- the Hall of Fame says so. ESPN's computer matchups of the all-time best teams, such as "Dream Bowl" say so. Time and time again the '70s Steelers are declared a cut above.

John Madden says so:

If a non Steeler lover like Madden can admit it, why can't you? When you compare teams, nobody ever had the blend of talent on BOTH sides of the ball as the Steelers. Teams like the '80s '49ers and '00s Pats don't compare to the '70s Steelers on the defensive side of the ball. The '60s Packers don't compare to the Steelers on the offensive side of the ball. What more is there to discuss? (As for the pre-Super Bowl teams, NFL Films ended one of their late '70s documentaries with the words: "the Pittsburgh Steelers of the 1970s... the best team ever." Sorry Brownie fans.)

Just because you can cite one or two resources does not by any means close the debate. I am not in the mood at this point to spend a lot of time getting other resources to counter your argument. In fact, it was only an argument that you brought up in your own mind. I am not suggesting there is not some support for your argument....just as I am sure there is a ton of support for other great dynasties as well. It is a one sided argument. I am not saying you are right, and I am not saying you are wrong. There is NO method of ever empirically resolving that argument.

Bradshaw. Webster. Swann. Stallworth. Harris. You can say there were better offenses, but it'd be debatable. Who had more Hall of Famers on offense than the '70s Steelers?

You asked. Here is your answer: Both the Browns of the 50s and the Packers of the 60s had as many or more HOFers on the offense:

Steelers: Bradshaw, Harris, Webster, Swann, Stallworth....5 total

Packers: Gregg, Hornung, Ringo, Starr, Taylor...5 total

Browns: Frank Gatski, Otto Graham, Lou Groza, Dante Lavelli, Mike McCormack, Marion Motley...6 total.

..

Greene. Lambert. Blount. Ham. You can say there was a better defense, but you'd probably be wrong. Again, name me a defense that has more Hall of Famers.

OK, again, I shall abide:

Steelers: the 4 you mention above.

Packers: Herb Adderly, Willie Davis, Henry Jordan, Ray Nitschke, Willie Wood...5 total

Browns only had 2 deenders: Bill Willis and Len Ford....but:

Bears: Clyde Bulldog Turner, Joe Stydahar, George McAffee, George Musso, Dan Fortmann..5 total.

As a team, though, you can't argue. NOBODY fielded balance like that at one time. Ever. No team was as good at one time, on either side of the ball, as the '70s Steelers. Deal with it, and move on.

I think I did just deal with it, noting that the Packers were every bit as balanced if not moreso.

And not only that, you don't mention something that sets the great '70s Steelers apart from every other franchise in history -- they had to be TWO different teams to win 4 Super Bowls.

They won pounding it out and with defense, under the old rules. Then, when the rules were changed in the later '70s (partly to stop the Steelers' defense from dominating everyone else) the Steelers RE-INVENTED THEMSELVES as a high-powered passing team, with Bradshaw, Swann and Stallworth. Name me ANY team that had to overcome that obstacle.

That's not my opinion, that's fact. The Steelers of the 1970s are the greatest Dynasty of all Dynasties. By any measure you wish to use.

Well, at least you have convinced YOURSELF. You are welcome to go away self satisfied.

[The Gipper]

Formerly Stone said:

Look at me, blah, blah, blah.

I did this

I did that

Look at what I did

My bull shit is really important

Yep, I did create this methodology. Other than being a horse's ass and demeaning others with creativity while you have none of your own, do you have any legitimate issues with the credibility of this system? I don't necessarily think it is perfect, but then I did attempt to devise something that would attempt to be reasonably applicable over a 90 year period.

You think you have a better method? Perhaps one that would have come up with some absurd conclusion that say the Steerlers were the greatest team on pro football in the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 80s, 90s, 00s?

Somehow I think only that would satisfy you. Though I understand why you despise historical analysis.

[tampadawgs]

This might be the best thread ever, not only is it really interesting about all the teams in different decades, but you have a Steeler fan trying to throw out stats about the 70 steelers and he does not have all his stats correct and the Gipper in a very nice manner not rude at all just sand blast him all over the board....wow....It like watching Hillis run over a corner just fun to see.....

[The Gipper]

@tampadawgs said:

This might be the best thread ever, not only is it really interesting about all the teams in different decades, but you have a Steeler fan trying to throw out stats about the 70 steelers and he does not have all his stats correct and the Gipper in a very nice manner not rude at all just sand blast him all over the board....wow....It like watching Hillis run over a corner just fun to see.....

OK, the thing is, like I said, I tried to devise a reasonable system that attempted to do a simple quantification that would allow us to name a "Team of the decade" for each decade. It wasn't supposed to say which of those teams of each decade was the best ever. Joesixpack got all menstrual on us because I mentioned that the race for the team of the decade was the closest in the 70s. Well, it was. And he demanded that we declare the Steelers of that decade the best team ever. Well, I just am not willing to do that. Are they in the team photo for best ever? Certainly. Are there other viable candidates? Certainly. Did other teams have as many or more titles and Hall of Famers? Certainly. Did other teams face as stiff a competition as the Steelers? Certainly. Can a Steeler fan argue that that team is arguably the greatest? Certainly.

Am I entitled to agree or disagree with that proposition? Certainly. Do I disagree with that proposition? Not necessarily, I don't know. Should I come up with some methodology by which all the great football dynasties can be compared and contrasted and thereby come up with a definitive declaration of who is the best? No. Could I do that? Possibly, I am not sure.

One thing about the Team of the decade point system is that it also gave a lot of stock to teams that lost title games or conference title games, and even a little to just making the playoffs. But, I think in every situation the team that won the most titles in a year took the Team of the Decade (though, note that in both the 40s and 50s two different teams tied for the most titles in those decades. It was the team that had the greater number of postseason appearances that took the title).

As for which dynasty is the best dynasty? Well the candidates are there to be seen:

1920s Bears

1930s Packers

1940s Bears

40s/50s Browns

1960s Packers

1970s Steelers

1980s 49ers

1990s Cowboys

2000s Patriots

maybe there are a couple more that could/should be considered, but these are the primary candidates.

[The Gipper]

Perhaps in terms of dynasties, these other teams should be considered:

1950s Lions: won 3 titles 1952, 1953, and 1957 plus lost 1954 title game

1970s Dolphins: won in 1972 and 1973, lost in 1971

1970s Cowboys: won in 1971 and 1977, lost in 1970, 1975, 1978

70s/80s Raiders: won in 1976, 1980, 1983

80s Redskins: won in 1982, 1987, 1991, lost in 1983

20s Bulldogs: won in 1922, 1923, 1924. Actually, they DID win more titles than the Bears who got the Team of the Decade

[The Gipper]

@josephsuxdick said:

I had NO stats wrong. Just like I correctly quoted the many sources who have stated the '70s Steelers are the Greatest Dynasty in History.

You read what you wanted to believe.

That is all.

No, you didn't get any stats incorrect because you coyly gave yourself an out by asking "who had more HOFers" rather than averring that "the Steelers had more HOFers". I give you credit, that was smart. But now you know the facts and the answer to your questions.

And you did correctly state that many sources have nominated the Steelers the best dynasty. Nevertheless, many other sources have nominated others as well.....ergo, the debate can continue.

The more interesting question may, however, be: which will be the NEXT Great Dynasty.

[ClevelandFanForLife]

@josephsuxdick said:

Now that's more like it.

See that, kid? Nobody got "sandblasted," except in your wishful-thinking mind.

One thing to consider -- the '70s Steelers still may have some additions to make. Players like Donnie Shell -- as close to the Hall as a player could ever come without making it -- could still find their way in. L.C. Greenwood too. That's the thing -- that team was loaded not just with Hall of Famers but with superb All-Pro level guys too. Andy Russell was a star before even Noll got there. Was there ever, say, a LB group to match Ham, Lambert and Russell? A WR duo to match Swann and Stallworth? I doubt it.

As for the next Dynasty, well, the Steelers were a Tuck Rule away from being tops in the '00s, too. Who's to say they can't take the '10s? Wouldn't that just be swell!

not trying to get involved in the other crap, but why would the steelers automatically be the team of the decade if the pats don't win their first superbowl? they would both have two wins then and the pats would hav eeben to 3 superbowls. they would probably still be the team of the decade.

[The Gipper]

@josephsuxdick said:

Now that's more like it.

See that, kid? Nobody got "sandblasted," except in your wishful-thinking mind.

One thing to consider -- the '70s Steelers still may have some additions to make. Players like Donnie Shell -- as close to the Hall as a player could ever come without making it -- could still find their way in. L.C. Greenwood too. That's the thing -- that team was loaded not just with Hall of Famers but with superb All-Pro level guys too. Andy Russell was a star before even Noll got there.

OK, but think about the fact that the Packers of the 60s have already more in than the Steelers did: 10 Packer players, 9 Steeler players. Plus the Packers also have the possibility for more, including Jerry Kramer, MaxMcGee, Boyd Dowler and Fuzzy Thurston, plus multiple All Pros Bill Forester, Dave Robinson, and Carrol Dale.

The Browns of the 40s/50s Dynasty had 8 HOFers, but if you extended that dynasty to include the 60s team, they have 5 others (Jim Brown, Bobby Mitchell, Gene Hickerson, Paul Warfield, Leroy Kelley). Also, Gary Collins was named to the All 1960s team as a WR, but has not been considered for HOF (but, yes, this latter group was definitely another "generation")

Was there ever, say, a LB group to match Ham, Lambert and Russell?

I would say that Lawrence Taylor, Harry Carson, Carl Banks are certainly a match (plus Pepper Johnson)

And Willie Lanier, Bobby Bell and EJ Holub of the Chiefs come close perhaps.

A WR duo to match Swann and Stallworth? I doubt it.

They are not the only HOF WR duo in history (though they may have had the longest tenure together). Others include: Charley Taylor and Bobby Mitchell. Lance Alworth and Bob Hayes. And Tom Fears and Elroy Hirsch played together almost as long.

As for the next Dynasty, well, the Steelers were a Tuck Rule away from being tops in the '00s, too. Who's to say they can't take the '10s? Wouldn't that just be swell!

I don't think under my points system that the Pats losing that game would have allowed a change in the rankings, but it would have made it closer. (But then, some say that but for Jackie Smith's drop, that 70s Team of the Decade banner would have to have been changed from Black and Yellow to Blue and Silver)