Best NFL Team ever?

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.

Coach E. No

Jesus es Numero Uno
Mar 30, 2013
4,191
7,800
113
#1
That Marshawn Lynch thread made me think about this after 2-0-Sixx posted that some site thinks that the 2013 Seahawks would beat the 85 Bears.

Which team in your opinion is the best team overall, of all time?

I realize that most of us are going to be biased, but I think the 94-95 49ers team is the best team ever.

I can see a case being made for the 89-90 49ers, 94 Cowboys, the 99-00 Broncos, 13 Seahawks, and 85 Bears though.
 

Coach E. No

Jesus es Numero Uno
Mar 30, 2013
4,191
7,800
113
#6
Different rule sets in different eras.

People will argue that older teams are "tougher" automatically, thus making them "better".

Can't really compare due to eras.
The biggest thing I don't like about this era is the overprotecting of the QB. You can't even slap a dude on the head accidentally trying to block a pass without a penalty. Back in the day you could helmet to helmet hit the QB like it was nothing.
 

Coach E. No

Jesus es Numero Uno
Mar 30, 2013
4,191
7,800
113
#7
85 Bears obviously are GOAT.

lol @ 72 Dolphins! They played one of the weakest schedule of all times.

The one game da bears lost starting QB Jim McMahon wasn't playing and backup Steve Fuller played instead. That's the only reason they didn't go undefeated.
I'd be curious to see how they matched up with teams from different eras. Their passing game was the only thing that was really suspect on that team IMO. McMahon wasn't that great. Their defense could keep them in a lot of games, and obviously having Payton holding down the backfield is huge.

72 Dolphins are wack. Patriots won more games than them in a season, they just lost the last one lol
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,800
113
43
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#10
I'd be curious to see how they matched up with teams from different eras. Their passing game was the only thing that was really suspect on that team IMO. McMahon wasn't that great. Their defense could keep them in a lot of games, and obviously having Payton holding down the backfield is huge.

72 Dolphins are wack. Patriots won more games than them in a season, they just lost the last one lol
McMahon was a very good QB. He got injured the following year (one of the cheapest shots of all time by the Packers) and he never recovered from that shoulder injury. In 85 though him to Willie Gualt, that was a sick combo. Ditka benched McMahon in a game that season for the first half for being late to practice or some shit, and the game was very close, as soon as McMahon was put back in he through two bombs back to back TDs. They didn't have to throw often because of Payton obviously, but McMahon was dope.

Why do you think they didn't repeat in 86? They went 14-2. But McMahon was injured because of this:

 
Last edited:

Coach E. No

Jesus es Numero Uno
Mar 30, 2013
4,191
7,800
113
#12
McMahon was a very good QB. He got injured the following year (one of the cheapest shots of all time by the Packers) and he never recovered from that shoulder injury. In 85 though him to Willie Gualt, that was a sick combo. Ditka benched McMahon in a game that season for the first half for being late to practice or some shit, and the game was very close, as soon as McMahon was put back in he through two bombs back to back TDs. They didn't have to throw often because of Payton obviously, but McMahon was dope.

Why do you think they didn't repeat in 86? They went 14-2. But McMahon was injured because of this:

Yeah, that would probably get you banned for life in today's NFL lol But McMahon wasn't that great IMO. I don't like his odds of having to face a team like last years Seahawks that could likely stop the run and trust their secondary. Same thing with some of the best 49ers teams, and their offense was going to put up points almost no matter what.
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,800
113
43
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#13
Yeah, that would probably get you banned for life in today's NFL lol But McMahon wasn't that great IMO. I don't like his odds of having to face a team like last years Seahawks that could likely stop the run and trust their secondary. Same thing with some of the best 49ers teams, and their offense was going to put up points almost no matter what.
Like I said, McMahon was a dope QB in 85. They had weapons outside of Walter Payton and could pretty much move the ball at will through the air when they wanted/needed to. They led the league that year in points with 456.
 

Coach E. No

Jesus es Numero Uno
Mar 30, 2013
4,191
7,800
113
#14
Like I said, McMahon was a dope QB in 85. They had weapons outside of Walter Payton and could pretty much move the ball at will through the air when they wanted/needed to. They led the league that year in points with 456.
He really wasn't that good man. He wasn't in the top 10 in almost any category in 85. There was only a couple categories he was in the bottom of the top ten like yards per attempt. They had a good offense, largely because they were good all the way around and had one of the top 2 running backs of all time that could do anything you asked of him in the backfield.
 
Last edited:
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,800
113
43
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#16
He really wasn't that good man. He wasn't in the top 10 in almost any category in 85. There was only a couple categories he was in the bottom of the top ten like yards per attempt. They had a good offense, largely because they were good all the way around and had one of the top 2 running backs of all time that could do anything you asked of him in the backfield.
Man I have the season on VHS lol my pops recorded all the games I watched him with my own eyes. When they needed passing yards or a big play, that year McMahon always delivered.

Anyways, at the end of the day a truly all time great defense will always win. This is why 85 Bears are GOAT. We've seen time and time again great offenses get shut down. Look no further than last year, the highest scoring NFL offense in history limited to 8 points in a brutal beating. Joe Montana and Jerry Rice? Means nothing if the defense their playing is the 85 Bears. 38-13 Bears in a blowout.
 
Jan 5, 2006
13,536
3,427
0
35
#17
If they were so great... why didn't we hear about the 86, 87 bears? a team that great should have been able to repeat ( I don't even wanna hear Mike Ditka as an excuse) or win more than just 1 'ship. Instead that's all they won. Joe Montana is 4-0 in the Super Bowl. 49eers repeated 3 and 4 years later.
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,800
113
43
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#19
If they were so great... why didn't we hear about the 86, 87 bears? a team that great should have been able to repeat ( I don't even wanna hear Mike Ditka as an excuse) or win more than just 1 'ship. Instead that's all they won. Joe Montana is 4-0 in the Super Bowl. 49eers repeated 3 and 4 years later.
Know your history. Or even read the thread. They didn't have their starting QB in the playoffs.

-In 86 they went 14-2 however Jim McMahon got injured after an intentional bounty hit by Green Bay and didn't finish the season. Shitty ass backups Mike Tomczak, Steve Fuller played.

-Buddy Ryan left the team after the superbowl (who was obviously the genius Defensive Coordinator behind that great defense).
 
Jan 5, 2006
13,536
3,427
0
35
#20
This is exactly what you said: "Anyways, at the end of the day a truly all time great defense will always win. This is why 85 Bears are GOAT."

I emphasize the words in bold. So based on what you said breh... at the end of the day, if they truly were greatest of all time they would have won always won in 86 and possibly 87. Despite coaches leaving and starting qb's not playing... :siccness: