Best Team Ever?
Johnny Blood
1972 Miami Dolphins rank among the top single-season teams of all time.
Notice that the 1971 Dallas Cowboys (who won a Super Bowl) did not finish
higher than the 1962 Green Bay Packers (who did not win a Super Bowl). He
listed them accordingly:
1. THE 1962 GREEN BAY PACKERS
It's hard to pick a favorite from Vince Lombardi's four championship teams.
In '66 and '67, when the Pack won the first two Super Bowls, the great stars
were starting to show a bit of age. In 1962 they were young and vibrant and
on the rise. Bart Starr, Paul Hornung, Jimmy Taylor, Forrest Gregg, Ray
Nitschke, Willie Davis, Herb Adderley, Willie Wood, Jim Ringo, Henry
Jordan -- 10 future Hall of Famers with the meat of their careers still
ahead of them.
2. THE 1974 PITTSBURGH STEELERS
It's difficult to say which of Chuck Noll's four Super Bowl champions was
the best, but the '74 team has been a personal favorite because the nine
Hall of Famers on that outfit were all on the way up. Terry Bradshaw was
just reaching stardom while Franco Harris was hitting his stride. Jack
Lambert, John Stallworth, Lynn Swann and Mike Webster were rookie phenoms.
Three other future Hall of Famers were established on defense -- Jack Ham,
Joe Greene and Mel Blount -- but they were all young. Ten of the 11
defensive starters were Pro Bowl players at some time in their careers, and
the 11th, Fats Holmes, should have been. By Super Bowl time the '74 Steelers
had risen up in a frenzy, and the 119 yards they allowed Minnesota remains
the record low.
3. THE 1950 CLEVELAND BROWNS
The All-America Football Conference champs burst onto the NFL scene. In
their first NFL game, the Browns put it to the defending champion Eagles,
35-10. They beat the Rams for the title -- the first of six straight
appearances in the championship game. Otto Graham throwing to Mac Speedie
and Dante Lavelli, Marion Motley running the traps, Bill Willis and Lenny
Ford on defense, a terrific offensive line -- this team had it all.
4. THE 1971 DALLAS COWBOYS
The Doomsday Defense, anchored by one of football's all-time greatest
linemen, tackle Bob Lilly, and backed up by two of the smartest and toughest
linebackers ever to play the game, Chuck Howley and Leroy Jordan. Mel
Renfro, a Hall of Famer and 10-time Pro Bowl choice, overseeing things in
the secondary. Offensive stars? Where do you begin? Roger Staubach throwing
to Olympic sprinter Bob Hayes, with Duane Thomas and Calvin Hill running the
ball.
5. THE 1972 MIAMI DOLPHINS
No, they weren't the only professional team to go unbeaten and win a
championship. The 1948 Cleveland Browns did it in the All-America
Conference. But the Dolphins were the only NFL outfit to accomplish it, and
they set a standard of offensive precision that has seldom been matched. In
13 of their 17 games, counting the playoffs, they drove to a touchdown on
their opening possession. There were so many big names on offense -- Bob
Griese throwing to Paul Warfield; Jim Kiick, Larry Csonka and Mercury Morris
in the backfield; Larry Little, Bob Kuechenberg and Jim Langer on the
line -- that the defense was called the No-Names. But the D had its share of
stars, such as middle linebacker Nick Buoniconti and free safety Jake Scott.
6. THE 1985 CHICAGO BEARS
This is a tough call: Aside from Jim McMahon and Walter Payton, the offense
was greatly overshadowed by the defense in terms of talent. The 15-1 Bears
swept through the postseason, shutting out the Giants and Rams and crushing
New England, 46-10, in the Super Bowl. I have a feeling that by season's
end, no offense ever devised could have withstood the fury of that 46
Defense, with the extreme pressure it brought from all angles. Tackle Dan
Hampton and middle linebacker Mike Singletary were the superstars, but the
whole unit was a bloodthirsty, fiercely attacking bunch that allowed an
average of 145 yards and 2.6 yards per play in three postseason contests.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/features/dolphins/z_best/
Todd
dave
"Johnny Blood" <johnn...@tds.net> wrote in message
news:BIhY8.23501$fH5.22...@kent.svc.tds.net...
> "Sports Illustrated" asked writer Paul Zimmerman (a.k.a. Dr. Z) where the
> 1972 Miami Dolphins rank among the top single-season teams of all time.
> Notice that the 1971 Dallas Cowboys (who won a Super Bowl) did not finish
> higher than the 1962 Green Bay Packers (who did not win a Super Bowl). He
> listed them accordingly:
Also note that the 1996 packers are not even on the list......
Also note that his opinion counts about as much as mine, so here's MY list:
1992 Dallas Cowboys (utter demolition of buffalo)
1993 Dallas Cowboys (demolition of SF)
1985 Bears (demoltion of just about everyone)
1987 Redskins
1977 Cowboys
Harry
news:3d31c763$0$1426$272e...@news.execpc.com...
>
> "Johnny Blood" <johnn...@tds.net> wrote in message
> news:BIhY8.23501$fH5.22...@kent.svc.tds.net...
> > "Sports Illustrated" asked writer Paul Zimmerman (a.k.a. Dr. Z)
where the
> > 1972 Miami Dolphins rank among the top single-season teams of all
time.
> > Notice that the 1971 Dallas Cowboys (who won a Super Bowl) did not
finish
> > higher than the 1962 Green Bay Packers (who did not win a Super
Bowl). He
> > listed them accordingly:
>
> Also note that the 1996 packers are not even on the list......
>
> Also note that his opinion counts about as much as mine, so here's
MY list:
>
> 1992 Dallas Cowboys (utter demolition of buffalo)
> 1993 Dallas Cowboys (demolition of SF)
> 1985 Bears (demoltion of just about everyone)
> 1987 Redskins
> 1977 Cowboys
you're right dave, his opinion counts for as much as your.
unfortunately, his is read by millions of people, and millions of
people will quote him as a knowledgeable source. how many read your
opinions, or quote you as a knowledgeable source? case closed.
Brian/MaryJo Budde
> 1972 Miami Dolphins rank among the top single-season teams of all time.
> Notice that the 1971 Dallas Cowboys (who won a Super Bowl) did not finish
> higher than the 1962 Green Bay Packers (who did not win a Super Bowl).
Of course, in 1962 the Super Bowl was still 4 seasons from being created.
You can't win what can't be won.
Brian
sp...@spike.com
wrote:
That's a serious inferiority complex you've got going there, Todd.
THE NFLGURU
"dave" <t2...@NShotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d31c763$0$1426$272e...@news.execpc.com...
>
> news:BIhY8.23501$fH5.22...@kent.svc.tds.net...
> > "Sports Illustrated" asked writer Paul Zimmerman (a.k.a. Dr. Z) where
the
> > 1972 Miami Dolphins rank among the top single-season teams of all time.
> > Notice that the 1971 Dallas Cowboys (who won a Super Bowl) did not
finish
> > higher than the 1962 Green Bay Packers (who did not win a Super Bowl).
He
> > listed them accordingly:
>
> Also note that the 1996 packers are not even on the list......
>
> Also note that his opinion counts about as much as mine, so here's MY
list:
>
> 1992 Dallas Cowboys (utter demolition of buffalo)
> 1993 Dallas Cowboys (demolition of SF)
> 1985 Bears (demoltion of just about everyone)
BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Capman
"Harry" <hm...@NSexcite.com> wrote in message
news:vDlY8.2$pU7.5...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.375 / Virus Database: 210 - Release Date: 7/10/02
dave
"Capman" <cap...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:k1zY8.96858$iB1.5...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
>
> "Harry" <hm...@NSexcite.com> wrote in message
> news:vDlY8.2$pU7.5...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > unfortunately, his is read by millions of people, and millions of
> > people will quote him as a knowledgeable source. how many read your
> > opinions, or quote you as a knowledgeable source? case closed.
> >
> Answer: 1 person, Duhve
The other 9 million look like idiots when Dr. Z is wrong as usual...but
then, packer fans are used to being wrong, and looking like idiots..
dave
"Harry" <hm...@NSexcite.com> wrote in message
news:vDlY8.2$pU7.5...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> news:3d31c763$0$1426$272e...@news.execpc.com...
> >
>
> unfortunately, his is read by millions of people, and millions of
> people will quote him as a knowledgeable source.
Guess again. At least I've never picked the SB winner wrong 4 years in a row
> how many read your
> opinions, or quote you as a knowledgeable source? case closed.
And how many using Dr. Z end up with egg on their face? Case closed is
right!
Harry
He's still being read and quoted by millions... and, based on the fact that
he's still writing for the same people, must be pretty good, even if he is
wrong. And I'm sure he's wrong as much as you... maybe more. He does, of
course, know how to admit he's wrong. Has JJ predicted the SB yet? How about
10-6? Was that you predicting the playoffs last year?
Ralph Hickok
news:vDlY8.2$pU7.5...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:
There's another big difference between them. Dr. Z actually knows something
about football, and when he picks the five best teams of all time there's
some authority behind his selections. When Dave picks the five best teams
of all time, it's like a eunuch with a colostomy picking the five best
brothels in the Levant.
dave
"Ralph Hickok" <rhi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Xns924CDB0D18591r...@207.217.77.26...
But Ralph! I have a letter from Al Davis telling me which brothels are the
best!!!
Must be rough being an idiot AND old...
Mark Rudolph
dave wrote:
You have too much aggression in your posts Dave - please put aside the
vodka bottle before posting. There's no real glory in trying to humiliate
someone with irrational text. You could co-exist here if you wanted.
I don't know Ralph's age (and don't care) but he's
very knowledgeable and his posts are enjoyable as well.
I and everyone else here have great respect for him.
Your posts are seldom more than predictable. I could write a
synthetic posting character which would be essentially impossible to
distinguish from you. In other words, the 'Dave' Turing test is a
rather low bar.
Why not turn over a new leaf - a Cowboy fan without doubt, but
without all the aggression and irrational angst - is that too much
to hope for? At least you would make the 'Dave' Turing test
a real challenge ;-)
Footejf
writes:
God knows, I've set dAvE up for certain programmed responses on the order of 17
events in 17 trials now. It was novel to begin with, but now it's not worth
wasting time on anylonger. I hope he takes your suggestion, Mark. I hope he
strives for a modicum of complexity.
Go Pack, Go!
- John Foote
dave
"Mark Rudolph" <mrud...@total.net> wrote in message
news:3D35FDD6...@total.net...
Actually, Mark, I believe I probably own the record here for most years
posting without an insult. It was only when I was insulted first that I
would retaliate, and even that only after repeated insults.
Ralph is a special case. He's willing to call me an idiot when (for example)
I stated Wolf paid a kicker a million dollars when in truth is was $875,000,
but when confronted that the Raiders web site stated Al Davis was GM of the
raiders, he returned with "I have a letter from Al Davis stating that is
wrong". Face it... he's totally unwilling to admit any error, and to me,
that's a sign of old and infirm.
But, I will try to put on my better side... after all, this is the year
where I get proven right yet again, and after four in a row, even packer
fans will have to start admitting it sooner or later..;-)
John Heim
> without all the aggression and irrational angst - is that too much
> to hope for? At least you would make the 'Dave' Turing test
> a real challenge ;-)
My son! I swear it's like looking in a mirror.
Seriously, I used to think everybody could be reasoned with. I believed
if you were patient enough, and you really were correct, you could
convince anyone of that. Naked Dave is really the one who convinced me
that it wasn't true.
You may be able to talk Dave into trying to behave more rationally but
it won't last. I hate to get so personal but the drunk driving thing is
just another facet of the same personality. He can't stop drinking &
driving even though he's been in real legal trouble. And you think you
can reason with him to get him to behave here? He couldn't do it if he
tried.
He's not in control of himself. Reasoning with him is pointless.
dave
"John Heim" <john...@nospam.tds.net> wrote in message
news:Xns924F904907436jo...@144.92.9.81...
> Mark Rudolph <mrud...@total.net> wrote in
> > Why not turn over a new leaf - a Cowboy fan without doubt, but
> > without all the aggression and irrational angst - is that too much
> > to hope for? At least you would make the 'Dave' Turing test
> > a real challenge ;-)
>
> My son! I swear it's like looking in a mirror.
>
> Seriously, I used to think everybody could be reasoned with. I believed
> if you were patient enough, and you really were correct, you could
> convince anyone of that. Naked Dave is really the one who convinced me
> that it wasn't true.
And John convinced me that it wasn't true. Even after he called me a liar,
even after I posted the proof, he would still deny the facts. It amazed me
so much that I hung around to see if this was just a failing of John, or of
packer fans in general.
Sad to say, it seems to be an affliction shared by many packer fans.
>
> You may be able to talk Dave into trying to behave more rationally but
> it won't last. I hate to get so personal but the drunk driving thing is
> just another facet of the same personality. He can't stop drinking &
> driving even though he's been in real legal trouble.
???? I have TWO DUI's John. Would you like to to get you a list of all the
packer "owners" who have more than two?? And I'm sure there many of them who
have more than two DUI's in a lot shorter life than 48 years, also. There's
a reason WI is ranked so high in repeat DUI offenders, and I'm not it.
> And you think you
> can reason with him to get him to behave here? He couldn't do it if he
> tried.
>
> He's not in control of himself. Reasoning with him is pointless.
Well, I always listed to reason. That's why I hang around.. I hear so LITTLE
of it here.
sp...@spike.com
<john...@nospam.tds.net> wrote:
>Mark Rudolph <mrud...@total.net> wrote in
>> Why not turn over a new leaf - a Cowboy fan without doubt, but
>> without all the aggression and irrational angst - is that too much
>> to hope for? At least you would make the 'Dave' Turing test
>> a real challenge ;-)
>
>My son! I swear it's like looking in a mirror.
>
>Seriously, I used to think everybody could be reasoned with. I believed
>if you were patient enough, and you really were correct, you could
>convince anyone of that. Naked Dave is really the one who convinced me
>that it wasn't true.
All you have to do is use reason, John. Never been one of your strong
points.
sp...@spike.com
>> You may be able to talk Dave into trying to behave more rationally but
>> it won't last. I hate to get so personal but the drunk driving thing is
>> just another facet of the same personality. He can't stop drinking &
>> driving even though he's been in real legal trouble.
>
>???? I have TWO DUI's John. Would you like to to get you a list of all the
>packer "owners" who have more than two??
Good luck getting them to admit it. There's no doubt in my mind that a
lot of those who give you shit about DUI have gotten them, themselves.
Mark Rudolph
dave wrote:
>
> But, I will try to put on my better side... after all, this is the year
> where I get proven right yet again, and after four in a row, even packer
> fans will have to start admitting it sooner or later..;-)
I'm waiting to see the better side - it will be welcomed by all of
us Packer fans. I can't believe that you wouldn't prefer to be
a grudgingly accepted parasite here than a hated 'sociopath.'
It's only a matter of choice of subject matter - instead of haranguing
us about SBs - which we accept that Dallas leads 5-3 - tell us about
Quincey Carter v. Hutchison - or the defensive additions, these
sorts of things. Your bizarre interpretation of NFL records is tedious.
No one else has your interpretation and you know it - you expose yourself
as a jealous envier of Packer history - if your team is as great as you think
then have the magnanimity to acknowledge the records of other teams.
For you to attempt to cheapen the league records to boost your team is
pretty low.
I hate to even think about asking what you were right about.
Dallas 11-5 and GB 7-9? - that was your prediction last year
wasn't it? You were a little in error I would say ;-)
C'mon Dave - join us - you're here anyway - don't be a sociopath.
No immediate reversals of opinion are required - just a new
attitude. You'll find people will accept you as a pain in the ass,
but as a legitimate pain in the ass, like Spike.
Why am I writing this? My good angels have overtaken the bad
I suppose. Also, this does not involve politics - I can get enraged
about all that.
dave
>
>
> dave wrote:
>
> >
> > But, I will try to put on my better side... after all, this is the year
> > where I get proven right yet again, and after four in a row, even packer
> > fans will have to start admitting it sooner or later..;-)
>
> I'm waiting to see the better side - it will be welcomed by all of
> us Packer fans. I can't believe that you wouldn't prefer to be
> a grudgingly accepted parasite here than a hated 'sociopath.'
> It's only a matter of choice of subject matter - instead of haranguing
> us about SBs - which we accept that Dallas leads 5-3 - tell us about
> Quincey Carter v. Hutchison - or the defensive additions, these
> sorts of things.
You mean like I used to do. You mean like our discussion in 95 of whether
the packers committment to the running game was enough to make them a SB
contender? Or the discussion of defensive line strategies that were best
suited to stop a mobile QB? Or the discussion in 94 about..... Oh wait.. I
tried that, and got the same responses I get now.
Face it, packer fans will always ridicule a dissenting opinion. They always
have, and things haven't changed. Many people enter this group for serious
football discussion, but a few rounds with the likes of Heim Fester and
Curley makes them realize it's a waste of time.. packer fans do not allow
ANY criticism of the team.
Look at how Gsteffi is treated...why? Because they had the NERVE to
criticize Ron Wolf! Unheard of!
> Your bizarre interpretation of NFL records is tedious.
> No one else has your interpretation and you know it
Um, the NFL itself uses my interpretation. WHy is it that Danny white is in
championship game records right next to Bart Starr? Give me YOUR
interpretation. I will listen...but like any debate, your thoughts should
hold together logically the picture you draw. Just like my interpretation
does.
SpooRL
>Face it, packer fans will always ridicule a dissenting opinion.
Some will always do that. On the other hand, I've as much as said outright that
I think Novak sucks at special teams coaching, and either no one here cares to
disagree, or I do so in a manner that doesn't come across as an attack on them,
the fans.
>a few rounds with the likes of Heim Fester and
Curley
Yeah, what I just said.
>Look at how Gsteffi is treated...why? Because they had the NERVE to
criticize Ron Wolf!
Look at how GSteffi has gone about it. It's troll bait. I criticize Wolf too,
though. Let's watch Dan Morgan go to the Pro Bowl.
>WHy is it that Danny white is in
championship game records right next to Bart Starr? Give me YOUR
interpretation.
A: because between 1966 and 1970 the NFL went through so many drastic changes
in format that even it doesn't know how to sort it all out.
B: because the webmasters are lazy, and they don't care, or don't know how, to
explain old championships vs. new ones, likely knowing full well that the
majority of the web-surfing audience wasn't even alive before the AFL joined
the party anyway.
Spoo
dave
"SpooRL" <spo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020719131014...@mb-mi.aol.com...
> From: "dave" <A HREF="mailto:t2...@NShotmail.com">t2...@NShotmail.com</A>
>
> >Face it, packer fans will always ridicule a dissenting opinion.
>
> Some will always do that. On the other hand, I've as much as said outright
that
> I think Novak sucks at special teams coaching, and either no one here
cares to
> disagree, or I do so in a manner that doesn't come across as an attack on
them,
> the fans.
Well, that also comes with certainty. For example, when I questioned the
packers possibilities of success with only a QB and no running game, the
few idiots at the time called me a fool. Of course, when the packers got a
running game and won the Super Bowl, they were still calling me a fool, even
though I was spot on.
>
> >WHy is it that Danny white is in
> championship game records right next to Bart Starr? Give me YOUR
> interpretation.
>
> A: because between 1966 and 1970 the NFL went through so many drastic
changes
> in format that even it doesn't know how to sort it all out.
>
> B: because the webmasters are lazy, and they don't care, or don't know
how, to
> explain old championships vs. new ones, likely knowing full well that the
> majority of the web-surfing audience wasn't even alive before the AFL
joined
> the party anyway.
Um, Spoo? It's not just the web.. it's also the "Official NFL fact and
record book".
But you forgot option C. The NFL realizes that the modern day conference
championship game is in fact the "same game" as the old NFL championship,
since the Super Bowl was an ADD ON game to the end of the season.
Mark Rudolph
dave wrote:
> "Mark Rudolph" <mrud...@total.net> wrote in message
> news:3D37874D...@total.net...
> >
> >
> > dave wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > But, I will try to put on my better side... after all, this is the year
> > > where I get proven right yet again, and after four in a row, even packer
> > > fans will have to start admitting it sooner or later..;-)
> >
> > I'm waiting to see the better side - it will be welcomed by all of
> > us Packer fans. I can't believe that you wouldn't prefer to be
> > a grudgingly accepted parasite here than a hated 'sociopath.'
> > It's only a matter of choice of subject matter - instead of haranguing
> > us about SBs - which we accept that Dallas leads 5-3 - tell us about
> > Quincey Carter v. Hutchison - or the defensive additions, these
> > sorts of things.
>
> You mean like I used to do. You mean like our discussion in 95 of whether
> the packers committment to the running game was enough to make them a SB
> contender? Or the discussion of defensive line strategies that were best
> suited to stop a mobile QB? Or the discussion in 94 about..... Oh wait.. I
> tried that, and got the same responses I get now.
well, I wasn't here then.
I was on internet in 1989 at AT&T Bell Labs when I was part of a music
theory mail list - I just never made it to football subjects until much
later.
Anyway - you could still discuss the subjects you say you prefer - the
same opposition does not apply.
>
>
> Face it, packer fans will always ridicule a dissenting opinion.
many do - many refute the opinion. You are welcome to argue.
That's fun.
> They always
> have, and things haven't changed. Many people enter this group for serious
> football discussion, but a few rounds with the likes of Heim Fester and
> Curley makes them realize it's a waste of time.. packer fans do not allow
> ANY criticism of the team.
nonsense - you have paranoia about this group.
What I (and 'we') don't like is criticism of our recorded
history. Your questioning of our championships is, as I said,
low and cheap. You have to accept the history of the sport you support.
This lowness and cheapness I find hard to accept. It certainly doesn't
change Dallas having 5 SB wins and GB 3.
>
>
> Look at how Gsteffi is treated...why? Because they had the NERVE to
> criticize Ron Wolf! Unheard of!
The only time I've chided Steffi is his insistence that Matt Snyder
was some kind of multiple threat - FB, LB, TE etc...
I think most consder him an abrasive but a good and knowledgeable
source of opinion.
>
>
> > Your bizarre interpretation of NFL records is tedious.
> > No one else has your interpretation and you know it
>
> Um, the NFL itself uses my interpretation. WHy is it that Danny white is in
> championship game records right next to Bart Starr? Give me YOUR
> interpretation. I will listen...but like any debate, your thoughts should
> hold together logically the picture you draw. Just like my interpretation
> does.
Your interpretation is BS.
Dave Wallen
You still don't get it. The packers do indeed have more championships. IMO,
however, since there were fewer teams, the championships were easier to win.
In fact, just about as easy as a modern day conference championship. And, as
a matter of fact, the NFL treats those game results the same as a modern day
conference championship.
Some day, when the NFL adds a game AFTER the SB against the winner of NFL
Europe to determine the NFL champion, I will say the same thing about Super
Bowl wins. I will say, the winner of NFL America played in a game which was
equivilant to the old Super Bowl, and the NFL will probably put the game
records of the "american championship game" into the same columns as the old
"super bowl game", even though the Super Bowl USED to determine the World
Champs, and now theWORLD BOWL determines the NFL champs.
It's not anti-packer, it's just common sense. The modern day conference
champion has accomplished the same feats as the old NFL champion, which is
why the NFL puts the records in the same place.
>
> >
> >
> > Look at how Gsteffi is treated...why? Because they had the NERVE to
> > criticize Ron Wolf! Unheard of!
>
> The only time I've chided Steffi is his insistence that Matt Snyder
> was some kind of multiple threat - FB, LB, TE etc...
> I think most consder him an abrasive but a good and knowledgeable
> source of opinion.
>
> >
> >
> > > Your bizarre interpretation of NFL records is tedious.
> > > No one else has your interpretation and you know it
> >
> > Um, the NFL itself uses my interpretation. WHy is it that Danny white is
in
> > championship game records right next to Bart Starr? Give me YOUR
> > interpretation. I will listen...but like any debate, your thoughts
should
> > hold together logically the picture you draw. Just like my
interpretation
> > does.
>
> Your interpretation is BS.
I don't think so, and nobody has come up with any other interpretation that
fits the facts. Feel free to try. Here are the facts you must allow for:
NFL records that were accomplished during the old NFL championship game are
in the same list as modern day conference championships.
The NFL lists Dallas as 8-8 in championship games, and GB as 10-4
The NFL lists all the championship games in one list - be they conference
championship or NFL championship games
the Super Bowl was added on to the end of the season to be played AFTER the
NFL championship game, and the NFL treats those results and records as
"Super Bowl Records and Standings"
Ok, let's hear YOUR interpretation.
Mark Rudolph
Dave Wallen wrote:
> Mark Rudolph <mrud...@total.net> wrote in message
> news:3D38C1DF...@total.net...
>
> > Your interpretation is BS.
>
> I don't think so, and nobody has come up with any other interpretation that
> fits the facts. Feel free to try. Here are the facts you must allow for:
>
> NFL records that were accomplished during the old NFL championship game are
> in the same list as modern day conference championships.
says who?
>
>
> The NFL lists Dallas as 8-8 in championship games, and GB as 10-4
More importantly the NFL lists GB with 12 Championships and Dallas 5.
The five of Dallas are SBs as you know - Dallas could never beat
the Packers in the defining days of the League.
>
>
> The NFL lists all the championship games in one list - be they conference
> championship or NFL championship games
They list Championships exactly as they should - the ultimate
game in the season. There is absolutely no ambiguity.
>
>
> the Super Bowl was added on to the end of the season to be played AFTER the
> NFL championship game, and the NFL treats those results and records as
> "Super Bowl Records and Standings"
>
> Ok, let's hear YOUR interpretation.
The SB is a special category of Championship - SB records
are just that. Number of Championships includes SBs of course.
Championship is the final game of the season in the league - simple
enough concept - the league winner. No ambiguity.
Dave Wallen
>
>
> Dave Wallen wrote:
>
> > Mark Rudolph <mrud...@total.net> wrote in message
> > news:3D38C1DF...@total.net...
> >
> > > Your interpretation is BS.
> >
> > I don't think so, and nobody has come up with any other interpretation
that
> > fits the facts. Feel free to try. Here are the facts you must allow
for:
> >
> > NFL records that were accomplished during the old NFL championship game
are
> > in the same list as modern day conference championships.
>
> says who?
The NFL. Danny White has "championship game records" right alongside Don
Hutson's, even though he never played in a SB.
>
> >
> >
> > The NFL lists Dallas as 8-8 in championship games, and GB as 10-4
>
> More importantly the NFL lists GB with 12 Championships and Dallas 5.
Noone I know is debating that.
> The five of Dallas are SBs as you know - Dallas could never beat
> the Packers in the defining days of the League.
Oh oh! Don't use words like that...according to the "official packer book"
the "defining days of the league were in 1939...
>
> >
> >
> > The NFL lists all the championship games in one list - be they
conference
> > championship or NFL championship games
>
> They list Championships exactly as they should - the ultimate
> game in the season. There is absolutely no ambiguity.
No, they AWARD championships based on the last game of the season. The
conference championship game is still called a championship game, and is
listed by the NFL in the same category as the old NFL championship games.
>
> >
> >
> > the Super Bowl was added on to the end of the season to be played AFTER
the
> > NFL championship game, and the NFL treats those results and records as
> > "Super Bowl Records and Standings"
> >
> > Ok, let's hear YOUR interpretation.
>
> The SB is a special category of Championship - SB records
> are just that. Number of Championships includes SBs of course.
> Championship is the final game of the season in the league - simple
> enough concept - the league winner. No ambiguity.
The championship is awarded to the winner of the last game. But teams who
make that game have already been given (by the NFL) one more win in the
"championship game" category. Which is why Dallas is 8-8 in championship
games, according to the NFL.
MDESTE1
their undefeated season. I would also put the 1984 SF 49ers in the top five
simply because they had Joe Montana AND Bill Walsh as well as a defense equal
to about all but the Bears in 85. People forget that with Michael Carter at
nose tackle was virtualy unstoppable, Ronnie Lott and all those young DBs plus
Walsh and Seifert as O and D coordinators. their depth was outrageous due to no
salary cap. The 89 team won the superbowl 55-10, won all their playoff games by
huge scores and had Jerry Rice in his prime. The ESPN theoretical tournament
had it about right. I saw the 62 Packer team and all the others mentioned.
sp...@spike.com
>Not sure I would rate the 72 Dolphins with their weak schedule regardless of
>their undefeated season. I would also put the 1984 SF 49ers in the top five
>simply because they had Joe Montana AND Bill Walsh as well as a defense equal
>to about all but the Bears in 85.
Yeah, forget the weak schedule. They played exactly 5 teams that ended
up with winning records for the 1994 season.
BTW, the 1984 49ers defense was 15th vs. the pass, 3rd vs. the run in
1984. Bears were 2nd vs. the pass and 1st vs. the run in 1985. There
are better comparisons to the 1985 Bears defense, believe me.