Best All-Time SB Teams

[Transplanted Caper]

Originally Posted by JCD

I would take both Montana-Rice-Craig and Aikmen-Smith-Irvin over Warner-Faulk-Bruce without a moment's hesitation.

Warner is grossly over-rated. He put up gaudy numbers, but gaudy numbers can be misleading. Example: Jeff George has better career numbers than John Elway.

Rams were a very good team, but there is a reason why you never see them mentioned alongside what are generally recognized to be the best teams of all time.

Faulk was the engine that made that team move. He was the best player in the league from 99-01 IMO.

[JCD]

Originally Posted by Transplanted Caper

Faulk was the engine that made that team move. He was the best player in the league from 99-01 IMO.

I would agree completely. I wouldn't call Bruce (or Holt) the best WR. Not by a longshot. Harrison, Owens or Moss were the top-3, hand's down. Wouldn't call Warner the best QB either, just a good QB with the most talent around him in a QB-friendly system.

[Fish on The Sand]

Originally Posted by JCD

I would take both Montana-Rice-Craig and Aikmen-Smith-Irvin over Warner-Faulk-Bruce without a moment's hesitation.

Warner is grossly over-rated. He put up gaudy numbers, but gaudy numbers can be misleading. Example: Jeff George has better career numbers than John Elway.

Rams were a very good team, but there is a reason why you never see them mentioned alongside what are generally recognized to be the best teams of all time.

You must define betetr numbers pretty liberally because Elway has almost double the passing yards. I do not know why you hate Warner so much, but even in Arizona he has shown he is among the best passers in the league, and he does not have an offensive line to work with. Did the system help him? Of course, but to say you could throw anybody in there and put up the best 3 year stretch in nfl history is just silly. There were so many weapons on that team it made mortals cry.

[Fish on The Sand]

Originally Posted by JCD

I would agree completely. I wouldn't call Bruce (or Holt) the best WR. Not by a longshot. Harrison, Owens or Moss were the top-3, hand's down. Wouldn't call Warner the best QB either, just a good QB with the most talent around him in a QB-friendly system.

I meant that St. Louis had the best group of receivers, which I am sure you would agree cannot really be argued.

[TroyAikman]

This topic has always been apples and oranges. To the thread starter: The only reason you posted this was because it had your Niners at number 1 so get over your high horse.

Every single super bowl winning team can talk about another team because they didn not do this or that right or whatever. You can literally argue until the cows come home. Just be glad that your team did it, and be even more happy if your team did it multiple times.

[JCD]

Originally Posted by Fish on The Sand

You must define betetr numbers pretty liberally because Elway has almost double the passing yards. I do not know why you hate Warner so much, but even in Arizona he has shown he is among the best passers in the league, and he does not have an offensive line to work with. Did the system help him? Of course, but to say you could throw anybody in there and put up the best 3 year stretch in nfl history is just silly. There were so many weapons on that team it made mortals cry.

I was using QB rating.

I don't hate Warner, I just think he is grossly over-rated. Good QB in a great situation.

As for what he showed in Arizona, what he did when you simmed games on Madden doesn't count. Here in reality, he wasn't top-5 in anything. Heck, he barely cracked the upper 1/3 of QBs.

As for the Rams system, that Bulger and Green were able to step in and operate the system with as good or better efficiency shows you just how much a factor it was. You couldn't put just anybody in there, but any half decent QB was going to rack up monster numbers.

[JCD]

Originally Posted by Fish on The Sand

I meant that St. Louis had the best group of receivers, which I am sure you would agree cannot really be argued.

Best group? Maybe. But it most certainly can be argued.

[Canadian Speed]

Originally Posted by JCD

I would agree completely. I wouldn't call Bruce (or Holt) the best WR. Not by a longshot. Harrison, Owens or Moss were the top-3, hand's down. Wouldn't call Warner the best QB either, just a good QB with the most talent around him in a QB-friendly system.

You sir are insane!!! (He said with a sly grin ) In 2000, if you look at the numbers both Bruce and Holt were top three as far as the number go. Both of them were higher then any of the players you mention as "better" then them... That means that a #2 receiver in this offence was better then the #1 receivers you mentioned. For that season they were Gods hands down. Then add the fact that Faulk was ranked 30th in receiving and the corp was solid. That means that Faulk was better then 2 other teams' # 1 receivers. True about Warner having a lot of talent around him, I'll give you that. But his QB rating was 3rd in the league and averaged more yards a game then any of the other QBs and his average yards per game simply eclipsed any of the other QBs that year.

As for career stats, Bruce has more yards then any of the players you mentioned as better. Holt does have less. And all three of the guys you mentioned do have more TDs, but here's the thing. Both Bruce and Holt have played in a system with each other for a long time meaning that they split TDs with not only each other, but Faulk as well. Where as Moss, Owens and Harrison have for the most part been the #1 guys for a lot of high flying offensive teams. And with the exception of Harrison, you always hear from the other guys crying about how they "never get the ball" and we've all seen what happens to teams that don't get the ball to Owens in the end zone enough to satisfy his ego... His TD stats don't showcase his talent in my opinion, it represents his teams' need to shut him up. Moss was much the same in past years, with this season being the exception. A lot can be said for guys that put up huge numbers, who share the glory between each other. Bruce and Holt are a combo that dosen't come along every day. And they've been doing it for a long time and still have a lot of time to do it. Madden on Holt and Bruce "A lot of teams and players say that they've lost a step over the years, but those teams still get beat by them more often then not."

Sorry for the rant, but somebody has to speak up for the guys that just show up and play the game and play it better then most...

[JCD]

Originally Posted by Canadian Speed

You sir are insane!!! (He said with a sly grin ) In 2000, if you look at the numbers both Bruce and Holt were top three as far as the number go. Both of them were higher then any of the players you mention as "better" then them... That means that a #2 receiver in this offence was better then the #1 receivers you mentioned. For that season they were Gods hands down. Then add the fact that Faulk was ranked 30th in receiving and the corp was solid. That means that Faulk was better then 2 other teams' # 1 receivers.

That is a rather myopic view of things. Receiving yards are now the only measure of a player?

So, by your logic, Derrick Alexander was the 7th best WR in the game that year?

Hmm... lets apply that logic today.

Bobby Engram is now the 11th best WR in the game today. Better than Steve Smith, Tory Holt and Chad Johnson.

So tell me, would you REALLY want Engram over Johnson, Holt or Smith?

Or, like in 2000, there is more to a WR that raw numbers alone.

The short list of best WRs in the game in 2000 were Harrison, Moss and Owens. Pick your order. But that was EVERYBODY'S list. (Not surprisingly, they were #1, #2 and #3 in TDs).

Originally Posted by Canadian Speed

True about Warner having a lot of talent around him, I'll give you that. But his QB rating was 3rd in the league and averaged more yards a game then any of the other QBs and his average yards per game simply eclipsed any of the other QBs that year.

Your first statement explains the later ones. Something that was further confirmed when Green (and later Bulger) stepped into that same situation and proceeded to rack up similar numbers.

That Warner has failed to do anything close to that kind of production before or since having that cast of characters seals it.

Originally Posted by Canadian Speed

As for career stats, Bruce has more yards then any of the players you mentioned as better. Holt does have less.

Could that have anything to do with Bruce being the older player on that list? Moss is only 2000-some yard behind... and has 5 years to make up that ground.

Originally Posted by Canadian Speed

And all three of the guys you mentioned do have more TDs, but here's the thing. Both Bruce and Holt have played in a system with each other for a long time meaning that they split TDs with not only each other, but Faulk as well. Where as Moss, Owens and Harrison have for the most part been the #1 guys for a lot of high flying offensive teams.

That is simply false.

Bruce played 5-seasons without Holt as the definitive #1 WR for his team. That is 1/3 of his career.

Moss played 1/3 of his career with Cris Carter (and then Wes Welker this past season).

Owens shared the limelight with Jerry Rice. It wasn't until his last few seasons with the Niners that he wasn't opposite Rice.

Harrison? I give you him. Only these last few seasons has he shared the ball.

Originally Posted by Canadian Speed

And with the exception of Harrison, you always hear from the other guys crying about how they "never get the ball" and we've all seen what happens to teams that don't get the ball to Owens in the end zone enough to satisfy his ego... His TD stats don't showcase his talent in my opinion, it represents his teams' need to shut him up. Moss was much the same in past years, with this season being the exception. A lot can be said for guys that put up huge numbers, who share the glory between each other. Bruce and Holt are a combo that dosen't come along every day. And they've been doing it for a long time and still have a lot of time to do it. Madden on Holt and Bruce "A lot of teams and players say that they've lost a step over the years, but those teams still get beat by them more often then not."

Ego and talent are not the same.

Originally Posted by Canadian Speed

Sorry for the rant, but somebody has to speak up for the guys that just show up and play the game and play it better then most...

Better than most, yes. Better than Owens, Moss and Harrison? No.

[Canadian Speed]

Well here's the thing... I went into careers, so I'll not touch that again because you raised some good points... Maybe you're not soooo insane. But the main focus was for that season... The team was stacked, and though yards are not the only telling stat for a wide receiver, it is an important one. That's why if you check on NFL.com for stats they feature receiver, rushing and passing stats and not the TDs. A perfect example of TDs vs. yards would be Chad Johnson... Huge yards vs. average/above average TDs for a wide receiver, but he's still considered a huge receiver. Hines Ward would be another one... If we used TDs as the only stat to proove how god a receiver is Dallas Clark would be smoking the hell out of a lot of guys... Same with Greg Jennings. Don't discount the need for yards. Fact is that with a back like Faulk, he's going to get his share of TDs as well... I can't honnestly say that I'd have traded their offence for any other one... The retort about the people the others played with is that they played with huge names that were on their way out... Right? And though Moss/Cris/Welker-(who only looked good because of loose coverage due to Randy being there) and Owens/Rice were couples, they weren't as impresive as these two that season, with a RB like Faulk to boot... Even NFL Network ranks them in their Top 10 Offences of all time, somewhere in the middle... The only reason they didn't get more TDs is because their D spent so much time on the field...

[Roy_Williams318]

Let's put it like this.....Aikman>>Warner...Emmitt>>Faulk...Irvin>>B ruce....the Cowboys defense>>>>>The Rams defense. So I'm fairly certain the Cowboys could have hung with the Patriots....and beat them far worse than the Giants did lol.

I'm not gonna argue for the 9ers or Steelers....cause I don't care about them.

[Jay]

You guys want to hear something really funny? … On one of my other boards there was a member arguing that Warner was a top 10 all-time quarterback and that he was better than Dan Marino and Peyton Manning, he even tried to present stats to back up his case. Now that's hilarious.

[Rick Astley]

I don't even think the 1984 49ers were the best 49er team ever.

[Canadian Speed]

I agree, even when the Cowboys were in their hayday, it almost always flet like it was a coin to see who would win the Division and then go on to win the Super Bowl... The 9ers were a strong team for a long time.

[JCD]

Originally Posted by Canadian Speed

But the main focus was for that season... The team was stacked, and though yards are not the only telling stat for a wide receiver, it is an important one.

It is an important one, but not the only one. Nobody considered Bruce nor Holt better than Moss, Harrison or Owens in 1999. Nobody.

Originally Posted by Canadian Speed

The only reason they didn't get more TDs is because their D spent so much time on the field...

Not true. In fact, Rams defense was the 4th best in the league in TOP:
NFL Stats: by Team Category

Actually, you can make a case for the opposite. Because the Rams defense was so good at getting off the field, and them being 2nd in the league in TOs, they gave their offense more opportunities to score. Much like the 1998 Vikings defense did for that offense.