The Gipper Posted October 5, 2010 Report Share Posted October 5, 2010 This is a system I developed some time back to determine which NFL team has the right to call itself the "Team of the Decade". I don't think I have actually given the Final Standings for the decade from 2000-2009. Of course this year we are starting a new decade, the "Teens". The methodology is simple: 10 points awarded for a Super Bowl win. 6 points for a Super Bowl loss. 3 points for a conference championship loss, and 1 point for a playoff appearance. So here are the Final totals. New England Patriots 41 points They are the Team of the 00s. Pittsburgh Steelers 28 pts. Indianapolis Colts 25 pts. Philadelphia Eagles 21 pts. New York Giants 20 points Baltimore Ravens 17 pts. New Orleans Saints 14 pts. Tampa Bay Bucs 14 pts. Seattle Seahawks 10 pts. Carolina Panthers 10 pts. Oakland Raiders 10 pts. St. Louis Rams 9 pts. Minnesota Vikings 8 pts. Green Bay Packers 8 pts. Chicago Bears 8 pts. Arizona Cardinals 7 pts. Tennessee Titans 7 pts. NY Jets 7 pts. San Diego Chargers 7 pts. Denver Broncos 6 pts. Atlanta Falcons 5 pts. Dallas Cowboys 4 pts. San Francisco 49ers 2 pts. Kansas City Chiefs 2 pts. Washington Redskins 2 pts. Cincinnati Bengals 2 pts. Jacksonville Jaguars 2 pts. Cleveland Browns 1 pt. Detroit Lions -0- pts Buffalo Bills -0- pts Houston Texans -0- pts. As far as previous decades here are just the Top 5 with their rank: 1990s: Dallas Cowboys 37 pts. Team of the 1990s Buffalo Bills 28 pts. San Francisco 49ers 25 pts. Denver Broncos 25 pts. Green Bay Packers 22 pts. 1980s: San Francisco 49ers 46 pts. Team of the 1980s Washington Redskins 30 pts. Oakland/LA Raiders 23 pts. Denver Broncos 20 pts. Chicago Bears 18 pts. 1970s: Pittsburgh Steelers 48 pts. Team of the 1970s Dallas Cowboys 46 pts. (of all decades this was the smallest point margin) Miami Dolphins 30 pts. Oakland Raiders 26 pts. Minnesota Vikings 25 pts 1960s (note: 10 points for both a pre-1966 AFL or NFL title, 6 pts for title game loss) Green Bay Packers 56 points Team of the 1960s San Diego Chargers 34 points Houston Oilers 30 pts. Kansas City Chiefs 27 points Buffalo Bills 26 pts. Cleveland Browns 23 pts. *(2d amongst NFL only teams) Baltimore Colts 15 pts. (3rd amongst NFL only teams) 1950s Cleveland Browns 57 pts. Team of the 1950s Detroit Lions 36 pts. Los Angeles Rams 25 pts. New York Giants 25 pts. Baltimore Colts 20 pts. 1940s Chicago Bears 46 points Team of the 1940s Cleveland Browns 40 pts. Washington Redskins 28 pts. Philadelphia Eagles 26 pts. New York Giants 21 points 1930s Green Bay Packers 52 pts. Team of the 1930s New York Giants 44 points Chicago Bears 32 pts. Detroit Lions 16 pts. Washington Redskins 16 pts. 1920s Chicago Bears 43 pts Team of the 1930s Canton/Cleveland Bulldogs 30 pts. Green Bay Packers 19 pts. Frankford Yellow Jackets 19 pts. New York Giants 16 pts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted October 5, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 5, 2010 FYI from the above here are the teams with the most appearances in any of the given 9 decades: NY Giants 5 Green Bay Packers 4 Chicago Bears 4 Cleveland Browns 3 Washington Redskins 3 Baltimore/Indy Colts 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted October 5, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 5, 2010 In terms of the Browns scores for each decade it is broken down as follows: 2000s: rank 29th with 1 point 1990s: rank: tied for 27th with 1 point 1980s: tied for 8th with 13 points (with Bengals no less) 1970s: tied for 14th with 2 points 1960s: 6th overall (2d among NFL only teams) 1950s: 1st overall 1940s: 2d overall (note however if you take the Cleveland Rams tenure, Cleveland would be 1st overall) 1930s: note: Cleveland Rams did not make postseason title game 1920s: Cleveland/Canton Bulldogs 2d overall. Akron Pros 6th overall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted October 5, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 5, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheClevelandSound Posted October 5, 2010 Report Share Posted October 5, 2010 OWNED. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted October 6, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 6, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted October 6, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 6, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tampadawgs Posted October 6, 2010 Report Share Posted October 6, 2010 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..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted October 6, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 6, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted October 6, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 6, 2010 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted October 8, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 8, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClevelandFanForLife Posted October 8, 2010 Report Share Posted October 8, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted October 8, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 8, 2010 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) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.