The better Dynasty?

Mutant July 16th 2011, 9:21 am

Moving on from the 2,000 yard rusher "debate" (it was more one-sided than I thought it'd be). I wanted to do 'Best QBs never to have won the SB' but that would've been even more one-sided with everyone choosing Marino.

Today: Dynasties.

Of the 4 teams who won 3 or more Super Bowls in a decade, who had the most complete team? Who had to over-come the tougher opposition? Who had the better coach and QB and shit?

MASTRxOFxPUPPETZ July 16th 2011, 9:32 am

i will say the 1970's Steelers, they had a great Defense and all the weapons on Offense with Bradshaw,Swann,Stallworth, Harris and Rocky Blier...if the Patriots werent caught cheating i would have chosen them, but how many Wins came from thier "advantage"? also they lucked into the SB with the Tuck Rule. The 49ers were pretty dominant but also 1 dimensional with Montana and rice being thier only "true" weapons..The Cowboys of the 90's seemed to have all the pieces to the puzzle, i watched them during thier run of SB's and in all honesty i thought they could be beaten fairley easy, it always suprised me how much they won, but they never "dominated' anyone.

Mutant July 16th 2011, 9:54 am

MASTRxOFxPUPPETZ wrote:i will say the 1970's Steelers, they had a great Defense and all the weapons on Offense with Bradshaw,Swann,Stallworth, Harris and Rocky Blier...if the Patriots werent caught cheating i would have chosen them, but how many Wins came from thier "advantage"? also they lucked into the SB with the Tuck Rule. The 49ers were pretty dominant but also 1 dimensional with Montana and rice being thier only "true" weapons..The Cowboys of the 90's seemed to have all the pieces to the puzzle, i watched them during thier run of SB's and in all honesty i thought they could be beaten fairley easy, it always suprised me how much they won, but they never "dominated' anyone.

What about Roger Craig? He was a dual threat back who could run and catch. I think he has the record of getting 1,000 yards rushing and 1,000 yards recieving in 1 season.

Problem with the Steelers is that I don't think Bradshaw was a great QB. They dominated because of their defense and because if their running game. Bradshaw had 210 TDs and 214 INTs in his career. That's terrible.

If it wasn't for their defense who could get the ball back after Bradshaw lost it, I don't think they'd have won many Super Bowls.

MASTRxOFxPUPPETZ July 16th 2011, 10:14 am

Mutant wrote:
MASTRxOFxPUPPETZ wrote:i will say the 1970's Steelers, they had a great Defense and all the weapons on Offense with Bradshaw,Swann,Stallworth, Harris and Rocky Blier...if the Patriots werent caught cheating i would have chosen them, but how many Wins came from thier "advantage"? also they lucked into the SB with the Tuck Rule. The 49ers were pretty dominant but also 1 dimensional with Montana and rice being thier only "true" weapons..The Cowboys of the 90's seemed to have all the pieces to the puzzle, i watched them during thier run of SB's and in all honesty i thought they could be beaten fairley easy, it always suprised me how much they won, but they never "dominated' anyone.

What about Roger Craig? He was a dual threat back who could run and catch. I think he has the record of getting 1,000 yards rushing and 1,000 yards recieving in 1 season.

Problem with the Steelers is that I don't think Bradshaw was a great QB. They dominated because of their defense and because if their running game. Bradshaw had 210 TDs and 214 INTs in his career. That's terrible.

If it wasn't for their defense who could get the ball back after Bradshaw lost it, I don't think they'd have won many Super Bowls.

Roger Craig was basically a "utility' HB, i hate to say it but ANY HB couldve played the role that Craig did....he played 11 years and only had 3 1 thousand yards seasons and 5 of those seasons he averaged LESS than 4 YPC...about Bradshaw having more INT than TDs, you have to remeber that back in the 70's the NFL was just starting to Pass alot more, not until the early 80's did Passing become prevailant with the 'Air Coryell" Chargers and everyone followed suit, also Bradshaw had 48 INTs in his first 2 seasons when he had just come into the league.

MaddMatter July 16th 2011, 10:43 am

Its between the Steelers and the 49'ers I'll have to think about this one for a little while.

at23steelers July 16th 2011, 11:26 am

Is this even debatable?? Very Happy

Soarindude02 July 16th 2011, 12:18 pm

at23steelers wrote:Is this even debatable??

For Non Bias People, yes. Laughing

Mutant July 16th 2011, 12:37 pm

MASTRxOFxPUPPETZ wrote:Roger Craig was basically a "utility' HB, i hate to say it but ANY HB couldve played the role that Craig did....he played 11 years and only had 3 1 thousand yards seasons and 5 of those seasons he averaged LESS than 4 YPC...about Bradshaw having more INT than TDs, you have to remeber that back in the 70's the NFL was just starting to Pass alot more, not until the early 80's did Passing become prevailant with the 'Air Coryell" Chargers and everyone followed suit, also Bradshaw had 48 INTs in his first 2 seasons when he had just come into the league.

Yeah, the teams of the 70s were run heavy. But 210-214 INT-TD ratio is bad. Even Staubach and Griese had better ratios and they were playing at the same time (although they had about 20-25 more TDs than INTs which isn't that great either).

poshmidget July 16th 2011, 2:45 pm

i chose the steelers kinda out of homerism, but honestly i might have to say the pats.

MASTRxOFxPUPPETZ July 16th 2011, 3:03 pm

poshmidget wrote:i chose the steelers kinda out of homerism, but honestly i might have to say the pats.

i wouldve said the Patriots if they werent caught cheating in this time frame...also they got very lucky with the "Tuck Rule" ...in all honesty, i dont know how many wins the Pats got from thier videotaping, but IMHO i believe it gave them a HUGE advantage over other teams.

CaptRCG2 July 16th 2011, 3:16 pm

All 4 decades were very different and difficult to compare against one another. Whether is was style of play, rules changes, free agency, salary caps, expansion, etc., you simply can't say that one dynasty was better than the other because you aren't comparing apples to apples. The bottom line is that each of the teams listed was the dominant team of it's respective decade. It was a pleasure to watch all of them. Excellence!

PhantomReturns93 July 16th 2011, 5:41 pm

Steelers had all-time great HOFers at literally every position, 49ers had Montana, Rice, and Lott...#justsayin

MaddMatter July 16th 2011, 6:58 pm

TheDrunkGuyOnTheCouch wrote:Steelers had all-time great HOFers at literally every position, 49ers had Montana, Rice, and Lott...#justsayin

LOOK HES MAD, lol

I chose 49'ers because Bill Walsh was a God.

MASTRxOFxPUPPETZ July 16th 2011, 7:06 pm

TheDrunkGuyOnTheCouch wrote:Steelers had all-time great HOFers at literally every position, 49ers had Montana, Rice, and Lott...#justsayin

Pintsizedjark July 16th 2011, 7:32 pm

I feel like the players are now are bigger, stronger, and faster then athletes of past decades..it doesn't hurt that Tom Brady and Bill Belichick are all time greats...I voted for the Patriots.

PhantomReturns93 July 16th 2011, 8:28 pm

MASTRxOFxPUPPETZ wrote:
TheDrunkGuyOnTheCouch wrote:Steelers had all-time great HOFers at literally every position, 49ers had Montana, Rice, and Lott...#justsayin

EPICxPENGUIN69 July 16th 2011, 11:06 pm

what SF did in the 80s was basically unheard of. they had it all. offense, defense, special teams.

the 70s steelers were good but because their defense was out of this world. in 76 when they had a chance to repeat, their defense was actually (statistically) better than 74, 75, 77, and 78. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/pit/

Soarindude02 July 16th 2011, 11:08 pm

I would love to see Around the Horn do a story on this. It would be interesting, hilarious, and downright... Shocked

EPICxPENGUIN69 July 16th 2011, 11:14 pm

Soarindude02 wrote:I would love to see Around the Horn do a story on this. It would be interesting, hilarious, and downright...

they barely use stats

I AM THE STAT MASTER

TRU11 July 17th 2011, 1:22 pm

49ers

did they not do it with 2 different qbs by the way???

first montana and then young ???

i think as a dynasty they where more succesfull then those other teams over a longer period.

but if im wrong here please feel free to point out what i missed Razz

MASTRxOFxPUPPETZ July 17th 2011, 1:47 pm

TRU11 wrote:49ers

did they not do it with 2 different qbs by the way???

first montana and then young ???

i think as a dynasty they where more succesfull then those other teams over a longer period.

but if im wrong here please feel free to point out what i missed

the 49ers won the Superbowl with Young in 1994, not in the 80's

TRU11 July 17th 2011, 4:55 pm

MASTRxOFxPUPPETZ wrote:
TRU11 wrote:49ers

did they not do it with 2 different qbs by the way???

first montana and then young ???

i think as a dynasty they where more succesfull then those other teams over a longer period.

but if im wrong here please feel free to point out what i missed

the 49ers won the Superbowl with Young in 1994, not in the 80's

my bad lol.

i thought young won more sbs

Soarindude02 July 17th 2011, 7:39 pm

TRU11 wrote:
MASTRxOFxPUPPETZ wrote:
TRU11 wrote:49ers

did they not do it with 2 different qbs by the way???

first montana and then young ???

i think as a dynasty they where more succesfull then those other teams over a longer period.

but if im wrong here please feel free to point out what i missed

the 49ers won the Superbowl with Young in 1994, not in the 80's

my bad lol.

i thought young won more sbs

I find it odd that the Niners did really well in the 80's, pretty good in the 90's and shitty in the 2000's, and they still will not go back to the old uniforms. Maybe going back, 10, 20 years will you give you guys some more luck!

KWicK78 July 18th 2011, 4:17 pm

Young was better than Montana. There, I said it. And I'll stick by it.

Bill Walsh was the biggest reason for success in the 80's and 90's. He was the single best talent evaluator (not a word, sorry) the NFL has seen. Parcells comes close, but Walsh was brilliant. He created a system that most teams today have tried to adapt and make their own.

Joe Montana was good, Jerry Rice is the best WR of all time. But Bill Walsh is the reason that the 49ers were good.

ON TOPIC:

The Steelers are hard to argue with. They were just so damn good. They had the skill, the attitude. They were a FOOTBALL team. The kind of team that everyone wants to be.

The homer in me says Niners, obviously. I'll have to think this over.

oh as per the uniforms-- I think throwbacks should stay throwbacks. It's what makes them special

Sponsored content

The better Dynasty?

Best Dynasty

The better Dynasty?

Re: The better Dynasty?

Re: The better Dynasty?

Re: The better Dynasty?

Re: The better Dynasty?

Re: The better Dynasty?

Re: The better Dynasty?

Re: The better Dynasty?

Re: The better Dynasty?

Re: The better Dynasty?

Re: The better Dynasty?

Re: The better Dynasty?

Re: The better Dynasty?

Re: The better Dynasty?

Re: The better Dynasty?

Re: The better Dynasty?

Re: The better Dynasty?

Re: The better Dynasty?

Re: The better Dynasty?

Re: The better Dynasty?

Re: The better Dynasty?

Re: The better Dynasty?

Re: The better Dynasty?

Re: The better Dynasty?

Re: The better Dynasty?