Who do you think is the all-time greatest NFL team...

[BullFrog Dad]

...within a single season? My vote goes to the 1985 Chicago Bears. The Super Bowl champs went 18-1 with four shutouts and had ten OTHER games where they held the opposition to ten points or less.

[Rabbit'93]

DaBears

[District303aPastPlayer]

the undefeated Miami Dolphins in 72 i believe...

[Highschoolfan78]

The 72 undefeated dolphins... Hands down... no losses therefore they are the greatest.

[pirate44]

Originally posted by District303aPastPlayer
the undefeated Miami Dolphins in 83 i believe...
1972

[Black_Magic]

I say the 94 cowboys. The total package in its prime.

[Macarthur]

It depends on what you are asking:

If you are asking who had the best season, you have to go with the undefeated Dolphins.

If you are asking who would win if they were all able to play each other, there is no question the 93 Cowboys would win. They were big, powerful on offense and fast and deep on defense. There's no one that could have kept up with that team.

[BullFrog Dad]

Originally posted by Highschoolfan78
The 72 undefeated dolphins... Hands down... no losses therefore they are the greatest. Few NFL people recognise the '72 Dolphins as the greatest all-time NFL team. They were undefeated but had to come from behind in a lot of their games. In fact they were even 1.5 point underdogs to the Redskins in the SB. The '85 Bears on the other hand pretty much dominated every game with the exception of a MNF loss to the you guessed it-Dolphins.

[BullFrog Dad]

Originally posted by Macarthur
It depends on what you are asking:

If you are asking who had the best season, you have to go with the undefeated Dolphins.

If you are asking who would win if they were all able to play each other, there is no question the 93 Cowboys would win. They were big, powerful on offense and fast and deep on defense. There's no one that could have kept up with that team. I'm asking which team in a given season was most dominating vs. the rest of the league in that year.

[Z motion 10 out on 2]

The 72 undefeated dolphins

[Bulldog_12]

Yeah, I say the Dolphins too. Wasn't alive then, but I have seen clips of them on ESPN Classic.

[big daddy russ]

The Dolphins are my favorite team, but that particular team played 12 games without their stud QB (Bob Griese). Griese was injured in the first quarter of the fourth game of the season and didn't play again until the second half of the AFC title game, so if you're comparing the teams you have to compare the Dolphins who were QB'd by the legendary (and ancient) Earl Morrall, :rolleyes: a holdover from Don Shula's days in Baltimore. Larry Csonka, Mercury Morris, Jim Kiick, and kicker Garo Yepremian carried that offense and Morrall hardly did anything. Csonka was a classic running fullback, straight through the pipes, Morris was the speed back to the outside and Kiick was the cutback runner. I think the Dolphins were actually better in 73, with Griese under center.

I think Walter Payton alone was a better back than all the 'Fins backs put together and the Bears were better in the trenches and at the intangibles. Morrall may have been on Social Security when he led the Dolphins, but I still think that McMahon was a better leader and better under pressure because of his toughness. Plus, he could throw the ball when he had to. Comparing defensive leaders, Nick Buoniconti was good but he wasn't a Mike Singletary.

[Macarthur]

Originally posted by BullFrog Dad
I'm asking which team in a given season was most dominating vs. the rest of the league in that year.

Well then, based on that criteria, I would have to say the 85 Bears. Because of how they dominated the rest of the league that particular year. But I still believe the 93 Cowboy team would beat them by 2 TDs.

[superslyguy06]

i'll have to say the 94 cowboys. somewhere around 6 or 7 pro-bowlers i believe

[BullFrog Dad]

Originally posted by superslyguy06
i'll have to say the 94 cowboys. somewhere around 6 or 7 pro-bowlers i believe '85 Bears had eight.

[TheDOCTORdre]

Originally posted by BullFrog Dad
'85 Bears had eight.
the 'boys still have a few more boys from that team to be added to the Hall of Fame

[Old Tiger]

Originally posted by Highschoolfan78
The 72 undefeated dolphins... Hands down... no losses therefore they are the greatest. I agree.

[GreenMonster]

Originally posted by BullFrog Dad
I'm asking which team in a given season was most dominating vs. the rest of the league in that year.

The 1985 Chicago Bears. It was a fluke that Miami even stayed on the field with the Bears on that fateful Monday night. Allthough, you have to applaud Shula for inviting a bunch of the guys from the undefeated team to walk the sideline that night. What a motivational ploy that turned out to be. Those 85 Dolphins were playing for more than just that one game, they were playing to preserve the pride of the entire franchise and the pride of every player to ever don a Dolphin uniform.

[SintonFan]

The '72 Dolphins were great, as were the '85 Bears. But what about the Ravens of '00? They had arguably the greatest defense ever... and they did it with almost only their defense.
What about the "point-a-minute" team(The Rams????) from the 40's or 30's? Shouldn't this question be relative toward the era(s)? :)

[Macarthur]

the 2000 Ravens' offense was crap. They are proabably one of the weakest Superbowl Champs ever.

The 85 Bears has an unbelieveable defense, but their offense was very one dimentional (Stop Peyton).

It doesn't matter how many probowlers each team had because that's dependent on lots of different variables.

The fact is, that 93 Cowboys team was without question the best assemblence of talent the league has ever seen. They had probably the best OL ever assembled. Not only were they big and strong, but they were nasty and really likes whipping peoples butts. They didn't just try to open holes, they tried to drive people's d*cks in the dirt.

[TheDOCTORdre]

What people dont realize about the '72 Dolphins is they had one of the easiest shedules in NFL history. The oppositions comibined winning percentage was under .400

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by Macarthur
The 85 Bears has an unbelieveable defense, but their offense was very one dimentional (Stop Peyton)... What made it one dimensional? The fact that you had to stop Walter Payton or the fact that you had to stop Jim McMahon?

[Macarthur]

Originally posted by big daddy russ
What made it one dimensional? The fact that you had to stop Walter Payton or the fact that you had to stop Jim McMahon?

I think the Cowboys 93 defense would be more than capable of handling McMahon. Jim McMahon just barely an above average NFL QB.

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by Macarthur
I think the Cowboys 93 defense would be more than capable of handling McMahon. Jim McMahon just barely an above average NFL QB. He was the Troy Aikman of the mid-80's. A Pro Bowl QB without Pro Bowl stats. You can argue against him all you like, but he was the one that saved their butts in at least five games I know of. I remember one where he had been benched but begged with Ditka to put him in the game. His team was down late, but Jimmy came in over halfway through the third quarter and went on to throw for three touchdowns. He single-handedly led the Bears to victory. Sound like anyone you know?

[Macarthur]

Originally posted by big daddy russ
He was the Troy Aikman of the mid-80's. A Pro Bowl QB without Pro Bowl stats. You can argue against him all you like, but he was the one that saved their butts in at least five games I know of. I remember one where he had been benched but begged with Ditka to put him in the game. His team was down late, but Jimmy came in over halfway through the third quarter and went on to throw for three touchdowns. He single-handedly led the Bears to victory. Sound like anyone you know?

I beg to differ. Here's a little look at their careers:

McMahon - 1 Pro Bowl appearance
Only 1 career 300 yard game
Only 3 Career 2000 yard seasons
100 career TD passes
18,148 career passing yards
58% career completion %
3 times he finished the season in the top 10 in the league in one category - Yards per pass.
His higest fantasy ranking for his position - 14th.

Aikman - 6 Pro Bowl appearances
32,942 career passing yards
61.5% career completion %
165 career TD's
Highest fantasy ranking for his position - 4th.
3 times he finished the season in the top 10 - TD passes
4 times he finished the season in the top 10 - Passing yards
4 times he finished the season in the top 10 - Completions
3 times he finished the season in the top 10 - Attempts
6 times he finished the season in the top 10 - Yards per pass
5 3000 yard seasons
5 2000 yard seasons

As you can see, McMahon is not even in the same stratosphere as Aikman. McMahon was barely an above average NFL QB. Aikman had pro bowl numbers and McMahon did not have pro bowl numbers, even in his best year.

Aikman will be a first ballot hall of famer. McMahon is not in and will never be in the hall of fame.

[Ranger05]

the cowboys of the early 90's no doubt

[HighSchool Fan]

Originally posted by GreenMonster
The 1985 Chicago Bears. It was a fluke that Miami even stayed on the field with the Bears on that fateful Monday night.

not really a fluke. miami scored 38 points, beat them by 14. miami was also 12-4 that year. remember the bears didn't have that tough of a schedule either, the opps. record was 97-95. i would have to go with the cowboys of the early 90's or the steelers of the 70's

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by Macarthur
As you can see, McMahon is not even in the same stratosphere as Aikman. McMahon was barely an above average NFL QB. Aikman had pro bowl numbers and McMahon did not have pro bowl numbers, even in his best year.

Aikman will be a first ballot hall of famer. McMahon is not in and will never be in the hall of fame. Aikman was hardly ever in the top 10 in passing yards, touchdowns or completions. Let's look at his career year, 1992. That was the only year he threw more than 20 touchdowns in a season.

1992... 302-473, 23 TDs, 14 INTs 63.8% 3445 yards

1992 was the only year he had Pro Bowl stats. In no other year did he finish top three in the NFC in completions, attempts, yards or touchdowns. Now let's look at his second-best year.

1995... 280-432, 16 TDs, 7 INTs 64.8% 3304 yards

His TD to INT ratio went way down and his completion percentage remained relatively high, but none of his passing numbers save for his completion percentage were even top 10 in the league. He still made the Pro Bowl every year between 1991 and 1996. Those aren't particularly great numbers and definitely not Pro Bowl numbers when stacked up against career years from Scott Mitchell (who finally gave the Barry Sanders some help from under center with over 4,300 passing yards) and Jeff Blake (over 3,800... a mark Aikman never touched). For his career, he threw 165 TDs and 141 INTs. A ratio of one interception for every 1.17 touchdowns. Meanwhile, Dan Marino who threw much more often and threw downfield more often, had career marks of 420 touchdowns and 252 picks. And yes, he did play about four years too long. Still, his 1.6667 TDs per pick were far better than Aikman's numbers. And don't even get me started on the Steve Youngs or Joe Montanas who ran the West Coast offense to perfection. Even risk-taker Brett Favre has better TD-to-INT numbers than Troy.

So why in the world is Troy a Pro Bowl caliber QB?

These are McMahon's 1985 numbers

178-313, 15 TDs, 11 INTs, 2,392 yds.

Not flashy by any means, but efficient nonetheless. The reason they were Pro Bowl QB's is that they played within their systems. No, they didn't have Pro Bowl numbers but they didn't have to. They bailed their team out when their team needed them, but they didn't need them much. Walter Payton ran for 1,600 yds. in '84 and Emmitt Smith ran for 1,700 yds in '95. They were exactly what their teams needed, they were simply efficient. They managed their team and were the LEADERS of their team. Intagibles can't be measured by numbers. McMahon had a toughness like Favre and Aikman had confidence like Montana. And in that particular year, Jim McMahon WAS great, just like Scott Mitchell was great in 1995, Don Majkowski was great in 1989, Neil Lomax was great in 1987 and (most importantly... take note) Mark Rypien was great in 1991 and Doug Williams was great in 1986.

All of these are names that will never make it to Canton and will likely be forgotten with time (hell, most of them already are forgotten), but were as good a QB as there was for at least one particular year.

If you want to check any of this out or make a rebuttal check out pro-football-reference.com. Best NFL site I've found.

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by Macarthur
the 2000 Ravens' offense was crap. They are proabably one of the weakest Superbowl Champs ever.

The 85 Bears has an unbelieveable defense, but their offense was very one dimentional (Stop Peyton).

.
Your comparison between the '00 Ravens and '85 Bears looks similiar but has drastically different conclusions.
.
No one had an answer to Ray Lewis and the rest of the defense. They had quite a bit of talent on offense... Priest Holmes , Qadry Ismail, Shannon Sharpe and Jamal Lewis. Who cares if they had Tony Banks and Trent Dilfer for their QBs? I disagree that they were so weak...
.
What about the '55 Browns? Eight Pro-bowlers in: Pete Brewster (te), Don Colo (dl), Frank Gatski (ol), Abe Gibron (ol), Kenny Konz (db), Carlton Massey (dl), Walt Michaels (lb), Fred Morrison (rb).(Thanks bdr)
.
I think the '72 Dolphins are best all time. The '85 Bears are "up there" no doubt.:)
Great debates still.

[TheDOCTORdre]

Here are two links from ESPN.com the first is the 10 greatest teams according to ESPN, while the second link is the top 10 as voted by fans
http://espn.go.com/page2/s/list/football/teams/greatest.html
http://espn.go.com/page2/s/list/readers/greatestNFL.html

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by TheDOCTORdre
Here are two links from ESPN.com the first is the 10 greatest teams according to ESPN, while the second link is the top 10 as voted by fans
http://espn.go.com/page2/s/list/football/teams/greatest.html
http://espn.go.com/page2/s/list/readers/greatestNFL.html
.
All of the fans' picks are within our lifetimes.:thinking: What was the criteria? Hehe
.
I'll still take the "fish", even though I saw the Bears and others...

[PhiI C]

The Dolphins had a very soft schedule in 1972 but before the season no one knew it. Remember they first played the Chiefs who the year before was in the playoffs and who lost by a field goal in the playoffs to Miami. Remember the Chiefs had beaten Minnesota in the Super Bowl in 1970. No one knew they would colapse. They had to play Baltimire twice and the Colts had won the Super Bowl two years before and was in the playoffs the year before in 1971. No one knew before this team would colapse too. Also they had to play the Jets twice with Joe Namath and the Jets were considered a top team and had surprised the world by winning the super bowl a few years earlier. Their colapse was a surprise. So even though the Dolphins turned out to have a soft schedule it was a surprise. Even then when you win them all it is good. Back then even before parity any team could beat another team on any given day. Sometimes the worse team in the league would beat the best. That is why they had the old saying: On any Given Sunday (any team can beat another team.) That is why it was remarkable. No team had ever won it all (even though a couple of teams won them all during the regular season but those teams lost the NFL championship). It was ironic that the Dolphins were the ones that kept Chicago from being perfect though. Still I would have to go with the Bears for being the best team ever but the Dolphins did the greatest achievment in being perfect.

I believe one of the Cowboys in the nineties would have been in very strong contenders and would have won it. When they won the 1993 Super Bowl they would have had a bigger dynasty. They had great defense and offense and were so young since the average age was 26. Had the team stayed together like the Stealers in the 70s and Packers in the 60s I believe they would have won one or two more super bowls than they did and would have been an awesome team. But two things did them in. The main one was the Salary Cap. I am not saying free agency even though that had something to do with it but I believe that if there wasn't a salary cap Dallas would have paid what it took to keep the players that they lost to free agency and they lost some great players. The other thing is losing Jimmy Johnson. If he had been able to stay at Dallas then he would have been reverened like Vince Lombardi.

[Macarthur]

Originally posted by big daddy russ
Aikman was hardly ever in the top 10 in passing yards, touchdowns or completions. Let's look at his career year, 1992. That was the only year he threw more than 20 touchdowns in a season.

1992... 302-473, 23 TDs, 14 INTs 63.8% 3445 yards

1992 was the only year he had Pro Bowl stats. In no other year did he finish top three in the NFC in completions, attempts, yards or touchdowns. Now let's look at his second-best year.

1995... 280-432, 16 TDs, 7 INTs 64.8% 3304 yards

His TD to INT ratio went way down and his completion percentage remained relatively high, but none of his passing numbers save for his completion percentage were even top 10 in the league. He still made the Pro Bowl every year between 1991 and 1996. Those aren't particularly great numbers and definitely not Pro Bowl numbers when stacked up against career years from Scott Mitchell (who finally gave the Barry Sanders some help from under center with over 4,300 passing yards) and Jeff Blake (over 3,800... a mark Aikman never touched). For his career, he threw 165 TDs and 141 INTs. A ratio of one interception for every 1.17 touchdowns. Meanwhile, Dan Marino who threw much more often and threw downfield more often, had career marks of 420 touchdowns and 252 picks. And yes, he did play about four years too long. Still, his 1.6667 TDs per pick were far better than Aikman's numbers. And don't even get me started on the Steve Youngs or Joe Montanas who ran the West Coast offense to perfection. Even risk-taker Brett Favre has better TD-to-INT numbers than Troy.

So why in the world is Troy a Pro Bowl caliber QB?

These are McMahon's 1985 numbers

178-313, 15 TDs, 11 INTs, 2,392 yds.

Not flashy by any means, but efficient nonetheless. The reason they were Pro Bowl QB's is that they played within their systems. No, they didn't have Pro Bowl numbers but they didn't have to. They bailed their team out when their team needed them, but they didn't need them much. Walter Payton ran for 1,600 yds. in '84 and Emmitt Smith ran for 1,700 yds in '95. They were exactly what their teams needed, they were simply efficient. They managed their team and were the LEADERS of their team. Intagibles can't be measured by numbers. McMahon had a toughness like Favre and Aikman had confidence like Montana. And in that particular year, Jim McMahon WAS great, just like Scott Mitchell was great in 1995, Don Majkowski was great in 1989, Neil Lomax was great in 1987 and (most importantly... take note) Mark Rypien was great in 1991 and Doug Williams was great in 1986.

All of these are names that will never make it to Canton and will likely be forgotten with time (hell, most of them already are forgotten), but were as good a QB as there was for at least one particular year.

If you want to check any of this out or make a rebuttal check out pro-football-reference.com. Best NFL site I've found.

Russ, I can't believe you are using names like Jeff Blake & Scott Mitchell to make your argument. Are you even listening to yourself?

BTW, I did get those stats from pro-football-reference.com so your comment about disagreeing that Troy was ever rated in the top ten in these catagories is flat out wrong. Go look them up yourself. You are wrong.

And here are Troy's again:
Aikman - 6 Pro Bowl appearances
32,942 career passing yards
61.5% career completion %
165 career TD's
Highest fantasy ranking for his position - 4th.
3 times he finished the season in the top 10 - TD passes
4 times he finished the season in the top 10 - Passing yards
4 times he finished the season in the top 10 - Completions
3 times he finished the season in the top 10 - Attempts
6 times he finished the season in the top 10 - Yards per pass
5 3000 yard seasons
5 2000 yard seasons

If you can't look at those and the numbers I posted for McMahon and tell the difference then you sir are in denial. Rick Gosslen of the DMN is the best NFL writer in the nation and he believes Aikman is a slam dunk first ballot hall of famer. Do you disagree with Rick Gosslen?

McMahon did have a good year in 1985, but if you call those numbers "great" then we have a different definition of great. By that standard then Aikman had about 8 great, great, great seasons!

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by Macarthur
Russ, I can't believe you are using names like Jeff Blake & Scott Mitchell to make your argument. Are you even listening to yourself?....

BTW, I did get those stats from pro-football-reference.com so your comment about disagreeing that Troy was ever rated in the top ten in these catagories is flat out wrong. Go look them up yourself. You are wrong...

Highest fantasy ranking for his position - 4th....

If you can't look at those and the numbers I posted for McMahon and tell the difference then you sir are in denial. Rick Gosslen of the DMN is the best NFL writer in the nation and he believes Aikman is a slam dunk first ballot hall of famer. Do you disagree with Rick Gosslen?

We aren't comparing careers. We're comparing single seasons. Scott Mitchell and Jeff Blake had much better single seasons that Aikman ever had, but they didn't sustain it over the course of a career. Mitchell was great for one year. He threw for 4,338 yards and 32 TDs. That's something Aikman never came close to...

My exact quote about him finishing in the top ten was, "Aikman was hardly ever in the top 10 in passing yards, touchdowns or completions... 1992 was the only year he had Pro Bowl stats. In no other year did he finish top three in the NFC in completions, attempts, yards or touchdowns." Not top 10, simply top three in his Division. Oh, and I was wrong about top three in one category in one year... completions during the '96 season. He was second in the NFC, behind only Brett Favre. I never included yards per pass, but I'll also give you that stat just because I like Aikman...

Does a fantasy ranking really do justice for a guy like Ben Rothlisberger? What about Bart Starr? Y.A Tittle? The guy who was considered the greatest competitor ever (Otto Graham)?And finally, Troy Aikman himself??? Fantasy rankings are based on numbers, not intangibles. If you remove that player from that team and replace him with a truly average QB (both intangibles and numbers... someone like a Brian Griese), where does that team stand? Without McMahon's toughness, just where would the Bears have been? Besides, Troy was usually picked in the later rounds in my leagues. I started playing in the '96 season, just a little after Aikman's prime years, but Aikman still only averaged 15 TDs a year during the 90's... and I'm taking away his two worst campaigns, the only two in which he dipped below 10 TDs. Furthermore, he averaged 10.9 interceptions per game during that span. A 14.9-10.9 TD to INT ratio along with an average of around 2,900 yards per season hardly puts Aikman in the category of "fantasy stud." Tittle may have had one or two 3,000-yard seasons, same with Starr. But without Tittle the Giants would've been a one-man show with Frank Gifford... and probably wouldn't have been in five of six straight NFL Championships. Same with Graham, who led the Browns on the best string of Championship years the NFL's ever seen. And look at Rothlisberger's stats this year:
Player Team Yds Yds/Att Yds/Gm Att Comp Comp % TD INT Sacked
1. Ben Roethlisberger PITTSBURGH 2621 8.9 163.8 295 196 66.4 17 11 30
He was hardly a fantasy player's top option.
...

Finally, Aikman's definitely a first-ballot Hall of Famer. Aikman's one of the best QBs of his day. I won't argue with you on any of that and I haven't been arguing about that. But tell me this... who would you rather have had on the mound during the 1979 baseball season, J.R. Richard or Don Sutton? Sutton was a first-ballot HOFer, is seventh all-time in K's, and has more wins than all but 13 people in ML history. Which one would you want? It's not about the complete body of work with McMahon, it's what he did in that single season. The same thing Jim Harbaugh did with the laughingstock of the NFL back (the Colts) back in the mid-90's, the same thing Don Majkowski did with the Packers for those couple of years and the same thing Ben Rothlisberger did for the Steelers this year. Like I said in my first post, there was one game where he came off the bench late in the game and rallied the Bears from behind to throw three TD passes. What I didn't tell you was that he didn't throw a single one the very next game. But he didn't have to. The Bears won by a blowout. And that's the key... he only stepped up when he was needed.

[Macarthur]

Originally posted by big daddy russ
We aren't comparing careers. We're comparing single seasons. Scott Mitchell and Jeff Blake had much better single seasons that Aikman ever had, but they didn't sustain it over the course of a career. Mitchell was great for one year. He threw for 4,338 yards and 32 TDs. That's something Aikman never came close to...

Okay, I guess I'll concede that point, but so what. So they were better in their best season than Aikman was in his best season. Are you saying you would rather have a one-year wonder rather than a perennial all-pro QB that will be a first ballot hall-of-famer and was consistently in the top ten is most major passing categories? Not to mention Aikman was money when it came playoff time. I guess I don't understand what your point is....


My exact quote about him finishing in the top ten was, "Aikman was hardly ever in the top 10 in passing yards, touchdowns or completions... 1992 was the only year he had Pro Bowl stats. In no other year did he finish top three in the NFC in completions, attempts, yards or touchdowns." Not top 10, simply top three in his Division. Oh, and I was wrong about top three in one category in one year... completions during the '96 season. He was second in the NFC, behind only Brett Favre. I never included yards per pass, but I'll also give you that stat just because I like Aikman...

So are you denying these stats?

3 times he finished the season in the top 10 - TD passes
4 times he finished the season in the top 10 - Passing yards
4 times he finished the season in the top 10 - Completions
3 times he finished the season in the top 10 - Attempts
6 times he finished the season in the top 10 - Yards per pass

These stats are not made up.



Does a fantasy ranking really do justice for a guy like Ben Rothlisberger? What about Bart Starr? Y.A Tittle? The guy who was considered the greatest competitor ever (Otto Graham)?And finally, Troy Aikman himself???

Absolutely not. YOu are right that fantasy numbers do not always equate to winning. That's exactly why Aikman didn't have higher numbers. I just threw that stat in there to give some comparison of Aikman's best year statisitically and McMcahon's best year statistically.



Fantasy rankings are based on numbers, not intangibles. If you remove that player from that team and replace him with a truly average QB (both intangibles and numbers... someone like a Brian Griese), where does that team stand? Without McMahon's toughness, just where would the Bears have been? Besides, Troy was usually picked in the later rounds in my leagues. I started playing in the '96 season, just a little after Aikman's prime years, but Aikman still only averaged 15 TDs a year during the 90's... and I'm taking away his two worst campaigns, the only two in which he dipped below 10 TDs. Furthermore, he averaged 10.9 interceptions per game during that span. A 14.9-10.9 TD to INT ratio along with an average of around 2,900 yards per season hardly puts Aikman in the category of "fantasy stud."

I never said Aikman was a fantasy stud. See above quote.


Tittle may have had one or two 3,000-yard seasons, same with Starr. But without Tittle the Giants would've been a one-man show with Frank Gifford... and probably wouldn't have been in five of six straight NFL Championships. Same with Graham, who led the Browns on the best string of Championship years the NFL's ever seen. And look at Rothlisberger's stats this year:
Player Team Yds Yds/Att Yds/Gm Att Comp Comp % TD INT Sacked
1. Ben Roethlisberger PITTSBURGH 2621 8.9 163.8 295 196 66.4 17 11 30
He was hardly a fantasy player's top option.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but originally you said McMcahon was "Aikman like". I was simply pointing out that McMahon really only approached Aikman-like numbers once in his career. McMahon's best season was an average to slightly below-average season for Troy.



Finally, Aikman's definitely a first-ballot Hall of Famer. Aikman's one of the best QBs of his day. I won't argue with you on any of that and I haven't been arguing about that. But tell me this... who would you rather have had on the mound during the 1979 baseball season, J.R. Richard or Don Sutton? Sutton was a first-ballot HOFer, is seventh all-time in K's, and has more wins than all but 13 people in ML history. Which one would you want? It's not about the complete body of work with McMahon, it's what he did in that single season. The same thing Jim Harbaugh did with the laughingstock of the NFL back (the Colts) back in the mid-90's, the same thing Don Majkowski did with the Packers for those couple of years and the same thing Ben Rothlisberger did for the Steelers this year.

I think I know what you are getting at. If you are giving me a choice for one game, The 1985 Jim McMahon or Troy Aikman, I will pick Troy Aikman every single day and twice on Sunday's. And I feel pretty safe that most NFL people would agree with me on that.



Like I said in my first post, there was one game where he came off the bench late in the game and rallied the Bears from behind to throw three TD passes. What I didn't tell you was that he didn't throw a single one the very next game. But he didn't have to. The Bears won by a blowout. And that's the key... he only stepped up when he was needed.

What about the other years the Bears didn't win the Super Bowl? Didn't they need McMahon to step up then? I would not call someone "clutch" that had one career year and was pretty much average the rest of their career. It was much easier for McMahon to come up cluth on that 1985 team beause they had emense talent, especially on defense. I would argue that McMahons success was very much a function of an amazing defense. I'm really not trying to diss McMahon, but he really was an average NFL QB.

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by Macarthur
Okay, I guess I'll concede that point, but so what. So they were better in their best season than Aikman was in his best season. Are you saying you would rather have a one-year wonder rather than a perennial all-pro QB that will be a first ballot hall-of-famer and was consistently in the top ten is most major passing categories? Not to mention Aikman was money when it came playoff time. I guess I don't understand what your point is.... No, I'm not saying I'd rather have a one-year wonder. I'm saying that for one year, Jim McMahon was just as competent a QB as Aikman. And that goes back to the original point of the thread... that the '85 Bears were a better team than the Cowboys.


Originally posted by Macarthur So are you denying these stats?

3 times he finished the season in the top 10 - TD passes
4 times he finished the season in the top 10 - Passing yards
4 times he finished the season in the top 10 - Completions
3 times he finished the season in the top 10 - Attempts
6 times he finished the season in the top 10 - Yards per pass

These stats are not made up.[/B] Nope, I'm not denying those stats. Aikman was an awesome QB. But McMahon was just as good for one year of his career.


Originally posted by Macarthur Absolutely not. YOu are right that fantasy numbers do not always equate to winning. That's exactly why Aikman didn't have higher numbers. I just threw that stat in there to give some comparison of Aikman's best year statisitically and McMcahon's best year statistically.[/B] Fair enough. But I'm just pointing out that statistics don't always measure the true worth of a player. Chris Carter was worth way more to the Vikings than 1000 yds and eight TDs per year during the last few years he was there. He made Randy Moss the most dominant receiver in the NFL. The work ethic, the professionalism. 1,000 yds is good, but you might as well tack on Randy's 1,500 yds to his stats if you want to measure his true worth to that team.


Originally posted by Macarthur I never said Aikman was a fantasy stud. See above quote.[/B] You're right about that, but you had brought up fantasy stats twice. I just didn't want to get into a fantasy war about who's better... because a Peyton Manning-led fantasy team will beat a Tom Brady-led fantasy team every time.


Originally posted by Macarthur I'm not disagreeing with you, but originally you said McMcahon was "Aikman like". I was simply pointing out that McMahon really only approached Aikman-like numbers once in his career. McMahon's best season was an average to slightly below-average season for Troy.[/B] He was also plagued by injuries throughout his career. He was the kind of guy that threw his body around and would get back up as much as possible. That grittiness essentially ended a promising career with the Bears in the late-80's. If McMahon would've played a full 16 games during the '85 season he would've had close to 3,000 yards. If you average it game-by-game, comes out to 2,944 with 18 and a half TDs to go with his 7.6 yards per pass. That's pretty Aikman-like.

Furthermore, if you look at his '87 season McMahon was on pace for 3,700 yards and 27 or 28 TDs with 18 INTs and 7.8 yards per pass. That was the year Payton finally slowed down and McMahon had to carry the team. Payton retired after that campaign.

He did post Aikman-like numbers ever year, but for a couple of years he played at an Aikman-like level and took a backseat to the engine of the offense.


Originally posted by Macarthur I think I know what you are getting at. If you are giving me a choice for one game, The 1985 Jim McMahon or Troy Aikman, I will pick Troy Aikman every single day and twice on Sunday's. And I feel pretty safe that most NFL people would agree with me on that.[/B] Nope, that's not what I'm getting at. I'm just saying that for one year McMahon did play at Aikman's level. And maybe you would pick Aikman for that '85 Bears squad, but he wouldn't fit their team. McMahon brought that Singletary-like toughness to the offense. Payton already played a smash-mouth style, now they had a QB who did it, too. They were a more physical team than the Cowboys and their QB reflected that.

What I was saying about Richard was that he had those two amazing years at the end of the 70's and that was it. But for those two years he was as good as anybody... Nolan Ryan, Don Sutton, Steve Carlton... anyone. If a pitcher can catch lightning in a bottle and play out of his mind for one or two years, why can't McMahon catch that same lightning at every critical moment throughout one great season?


Originally posted by Macarthur What about the other years the Bears didn't win the Super Bowl? Didn't they need McMahon to step up then? I would not call someone "clutch" that had one career year and was pretty much average the rest of their career. It was much easier for McMahon to come up cluth on that 1985 team beause they had emense talent, especially on defense. I would argue that McMahons success was very much a function of an amazing defense. I'm really not trying to diss McMahon, but he really was an average NFL QB. [/B] Nope, I wouldn't call McMahon a career "clutch" player. Hell, he only played more than 13 games twice in his career. But he did save their butts quite a few times, and yes he does have the defense to thank for it. Just like Elway, Harbaugh and Aikman had the defenses to thank for it.

Sorry, I can't include Marino in that group because he never had a defense.

[Phil C]

A lot of polls don't include Bart Star as a top qb even with all the Super Bowl and NFL championships he was in because they say he was just fortunate to have had great talent and coaches in his career which Star admitted was true. But I remember after Coach Lombardi left and players retired that Star played several years without the talent. He proved he could scramble and play good even without talent. Of course with the talent he didn't have too until the late 60s. The Packers had bad years then of course but Star's play proved that he was a great qb. Maybe not as high as some but still not as low as some think.

[big daddy russ]

You know, phil, I loved Bart Starr. He was the ultimate team-first kind of guy. And he might never make a top 10 list, but he's a definite top 20 guy and that puts you within the ranks of the Troy Aikmans, the Y.A. Tittles and the Sonny Jurgensens. Not bad company.

[HighSchool Fan]

Otto Graham, best QB ever.
105-14-4 career record
played 10 seasons and went to the championship game 10 times
won 7 championships

[big daddy russ]

I couldn't agree with you more, HSF. Great choice.

[Macarthur]

Well, I think we shall just have to agree to disagree.


Originally posted by big daddy russ
No, I'm not saying I'd rather have a one-year wonder. I'm saying that for one year, Jim McMahon was just as competent a QB as Aikman. And that goes back to the original point of the thread... that the '85 Bears were a better team than the Cowboys.

Well, I would never use the term competent when describing Aikman. He is a first ballot hall-of-famer! The phrases first ballot hall-of-famer and competent QB should never be mentioned in the same context.



Nope, I'm not denying those stats. Aikman was an awesome QB. But McMahon was just as good for one year of his career.

I think if you look back at a couple of your comments, I think you have contradicted yourself.


Fair enough. But I'm just pointing out that statistics don't always measure the true worth of a player. Chris Carter was worth way more to the Vikings than 1000 yds and eight TDs per year during the last few years he was there. He made Randy Moss the most dominant receiver in the NFL. The work ethic, the professionalism. 1,000 yds is good, but you might as well tack on Randy's 1,500 yds to his stats if you want to measure his true worth to that team.

I agree about stats, but at some point, a QB has to put up some numbers. I would agree that Carter had a good influence on Moss, but let's not go overboard. Moss is probably the most physically gifted WR to ever play the game. I think he would be a perinnial 1000 yard reciever with or without Carter.


You're right about that, but you had brought up fantasy stats twice. I just didn't want to get into a fantasy war about who's better... because a Peyton Manning-led fantasy team will beat a Tom Brady-led fantasy team every time.

Agree


He was also plagued by injuries throughout his career. He was the kind of guy that threw his body around and would get back up as much as possible. That grittiness essentially ended a promising career with the Bears in the late-80's. If McMahon would've played a full 16 games during the '85 season he would've had close to 3,000 yards. If you average it game-by-game, comes out to 2,944 with 18 and a half TDs to go with his 7.6 yards per pass. That's pretty Aikman-like.

I don't disagree with what you have said here, but I wonder if McMcahon had it to do over again, he might have taken a little different approach and try to lengthen his career.


Furthermore, if you look at his '87 season McMahon was on pace for 3,700 yards and 27 or 28 TDs with 18 INTs and 7.8 yards per pass. That was the year Payton finally slowed down and McMahon had to carry the team. Payton retired after that campaign.

I understand that much of his career was interrupted by injury, but ultimately you have to call it what it is. He was really only once or twice a better than average NFL QB.


He did post Aikman-like numbers ever year, but for a couple of years he played at an Aikman-like level and took a backseat to the engine of the offense.

I have no idea what this sentence means. You contradict youself within the same sentence.


Nope, that's not what I'm getting at. I'm just saying that for one year McMahon did play at Aikman's level. And maybe you would pick Aikman for that '85 Bears squad, but he wouldn't fit their team. McMahon brought that Singletary-like toughness to the offense. Payton already played a smash-mouth style, now they had a QB who did it, too. They were a more physical team than the Cowboys and their QB reflected that.

Well, a couple of things here.

Okay, so he did play at an average Aikman-like year once in his career. Maybe Aikman wouldn't fit into that offense, but that doesn't change the fact that Aikman was a better QB. If the 85 Bears would have had Aikman, then their offense would be reflective of his talents.

You last statement about the Bears being more physical is only a half truth. Yes, the Bears defense was one of the top 3 defenses ever. But let's not forget that the offensive line Dallas had in the early to mid 90's was the most physically dominating offensive line that the NFL has ever seen. That Bears defense really only had one guy that probably could have matched thier sheer size and that's the fridge. I think eventually the Cowboys OL would overpower and wear down that smaller Bears defense. It would be a great game.


What I was saying about Richard was that he had those two amazing years at the end of the 70's and that was it. But for those two years he was as good as anybody... Nolan Ryan, Don Sutton, Steve Carlton... anyone. If a pitcher can catch lightning in a bottle and play out of his mind for one or two years, why can't McMahon catch that same lightning at every critical moment throughout one great season?

Okay, but that doesn't make them a better QB or pitcher just because they had one or two phenomenal years.


Nope, I wouldn't call McMahon a career "clutch" player. Hell, he only played more than 13 games twice in his career. But he did save their butts quite a few times, and yes he does have the defense to thank for it. Just like Elway, Harbaugh and Aikman had the defenses to thank for it.

Well, I would say that those Broncos teams and definately those Cowboys teams were much more offensive oriented, even though they did have a strong defense.


Sorry, I can't include Marino in that group because he never had a defense.

Marino is an interesting QB. No question he was one of the most skilled QB's to ever play the game. However, personally he would never allow the Dolphins to build a team in the way needed to win a championship, that's having a good running game and a strong defense. They always built those teams around his arm.

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by Macarthur
Well, I think we shall just have to agree to disagree... I can settle for that.


Originally posted by big daddy russ
He did post Aikman-like numbers ever year, but for a couple of years he played at an Aikman-like level and took a backseat to the engine of the offense. Sorry about that. I meant to say he DIDN'T post Aikman-like numbers EVERY year....