greatest NFL team of last 30 years

[SCgarman]

1991 Redskins huh? Let's see. I am 50 years old. honestly cannot remember much about anything I did in 1991. I do know my Giants won the Bowl in '86&'90. Ken, I do know you are a life long Redskins fan, but fact of the matter is they are not even relevant as a top tier team anymore. Haven't been for over 2 decades. And unfortunately, I reside in northern Virginia which is Redskins territory ( because of wife's job-she brings home the big bacon). Every year when they are eliminated from playoff contention, the talk around the town is "maybe next year". What a joke, I laugh every year I hear this. Just food for thought, rant & ramble over and out.

[Ken Gargett]

56 minutes ago, NYgarman said:

1991 Redskins huh? Let's see. I am 50 years old. honestly cannot remember much about anything I did in 1991. I do know my Giants won the Bowl in '86&'90. Ken, I do know you are a life long Redskins fan, but fact of the matter is they are not even relevant as a top tier team anymore. Haven't been for over 2 decades. And unfortunately, I reside in northern Virginia which is Redskins territory ( because of wife's job-she brings home the big bacon). Every year when they are eliminated from playoff contention, the talk around the town is "maybe next year". What a joke, I laugh every year I hear this. Just food for thought, rant & ramble over and out.

AGAIN. TO EVERYONE. EVERYONE.

READ THE TOPIC. AND WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN. ENDLESS TIMES.

SOMEONE POSTS GREEN BAY. I LIKE GREEN BAY. BUT THAT MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS THREAD. PATS DYNASTIES. FINE. BUT NOT THE POINT OF THE THREAD.

IT IS ABOUT ONE ORGANISATION ATTEMPTING TO ASSESS THE BEST TEAM IN AN INDIVIDUAL DISCRETE SEASON OVER A SPECIFIC DEFINED PERIOD. WHICH IS SIMPLY ONE METHOD OF ASSESSING THIS.

WHAT THE SKINS OR ANY TEAM HAS DONE OVER A TWO DECADE PERIOD IS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS. HOW MANY TIMES HAVE I SAID FAR FAR MORE DEROGATORY THINGS ABOUT THE SKINS OVER THE LAST TWO DECADES.

IF PEOPLE WANT TO HIJACK THIS IN DIFFERENT WAYS, KNOCK YOURSELVES OUT. BUT I CAN ONLY EXPLAIN IT SO MANY TIMES. NOT THAT I REALLY SHOULD HAVE TO EXPLAIN IT TO ANYONE WHO CAN ACTUALLY READ AND THINK.

[Colt45]

2 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

AGAIN. TO EVERYONE. EVERYONE.

READ THE TOPIC. AND WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN. ENDLESS TIMES.

SOMEONE POSTS GREEN BAY. I LIKE GREEN BAY. BUT THAT MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS THREAD. PATS DYNASTIES. FINE. BUT NOT THE POINT OF THE THREAD.

IT IS ABOUT ONE ORGANISATION ATTEMPTING TO ASSESS THE BEST TEAM IN AN INDIVIDUAL DISCRETE SEASON OVER A SPECIFIC DEFINED PERIOD. WHICH IS SIMPLY ONE METHOD OF ASSESSING THIS.

WHAT THE SKINS OR ANY TEAM HAS DONE OVER A TWO DECADE PERIOD IS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS. HOW MANY TIMES HAVE I SAID FAR FAR MORE DEROGATORY THINGS ABOUT THE SKINS OVER THE LAST TWO DECADES.

IF PEOPLE WANT TO HIJACK THIS IN DIFFERENT WAYS, KNOCK YOURSELVES OUT. BUT I CAN ONLY EXPLAIN IT SO MANY TIMES. NOT THAT I REALLY SHOULD HAVE TO EXPLAIN IT TO ANYONE WHO CAN ACTUALLY READ AND THINK.

Well KG, as you are a long time member and moderator here, I imagine you've seen many a discussion meander / go astray from the initial point of topic.

Why so glum, chum?

[Ken Gargett]

2 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

AGAIN. TO EVERYONE. EVERYONE.

READ THE TOPIC. AND WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN. ENDLESS TIMES.

SOMEONE POSTS GREEN BAY. I LIKE GREEN BAY. BUT THAT MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS THREAD. PATS DYNASTIES. FINE. BUT NOT THE POINT OF THE THREAD.

IT IS ABOUT ONE ORGANISATION ATTEMPTING TO ASSESS THE BEST TEAM IN AN INDIVIDUAL DISCRETE SEASON OVER A SPECIFIC DEFINED PERIOD. WHICH IS SIMPLY ONE METHOD OF ASSESSING THIS.

WHAT THE SKINS OR ANY TEAM HAS DONE OVER A TWO DECADE PERIOD IS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS. HOW MANY TIMES HAVE I SAID FAR FAR MORE DEROGATORY THINGS ABOUT THE SKINS OVER THE LAST TWO DECADES.

IF PEOPLE WANT TO HIJACK THIS IN DIFFERENT WAYS, KNOCK YOURSELVES OUT. BUT I CAN ONLY EXPLAIN IT SO MANY TIMES. NOT THAT I REALLY SHOULD HAVE TO EXPLAIN IT TO ANYONE WHO CAN ACTUALLY READ AND THINK.

i am more than guilty of sending topics off track - perhaps more than anyone - but my issue here is not it going off track. i have no issue at all with that. it is that many seem to have missed the initial point. more than happy to see discussions about any of the slightly off-kilter topics any time. but they seem to be arguing the topic without understanding the initial post.

[Wertman]

I will always say the buffalo bills

[Sean3]

'08 Detroit Lions definitely...The best losers ever!  Cheers Ken.

[JohnnyO]

Ken.....if you want to say they are paper champions, they are the paper champions. Look who they beat in the playoffs; the Lions who they beat 45-0 and Falcons 56-17 earlier in the season. Just a lot of padded stats. I honestly don't remember the Falcons or Lions being great teams of that era. So they had a lot of stats in a lousy league. That makes them the greatest ever? No. Just paper champions. The only parody they had that year was with the Cowboys and Eagles, teams in their division. Then they beat the hopeless Bills. I think more credit is given to Gibbs success with players that had mediocre to average careers with other teams over the years. Hence the tomato can reference. To me there are teams that were more memorable and dominant. John

[Ken Gargett]

4 hours ago, JohnnyO said:

Ken.....if you want to say they are paper champions, they are the paper champions. Look who they beat in the playoffs; the Lions who they beat 45-0 and Falcons 56-17 earlier in the season. Just a lot of padded stats. I honestly don't remember the Falcons or Lions being great teams of that era. So they had a lot of stats in a lousy league. That makes them the greatest ever? No. Just paper champions. The only parody they had that year was with the Cowboys and Eagles, teams in their division. Then they beat the hopeless Bills. I think more credit is given to Gibbs success with players that had mediocre to average careers with other teams over the years. Hence the tomato can reference. To me there are teams that were more memorable and dominant. John

yet again, again and again, i am simply showing how one organisation assessed this. for a year. that was the post. will anyone actually read the post?

and yet again, again. not ever. will people please read the post before they sprout this stuff.

but in fairness to them, you criticise them for thrashing their opponents suggesting, presumably they were up against easybeats, but then say there were more dominant teams? not sure you can have it both ways.

padded stats is rubbish. you can only beat what they put in from of you. remember that they were in the NFC East when it was by far the most dominant division in football. that division won seven out of ten superbowls in that era with only san fran interrupting. and they have to play those teams twice a year. hardly for padding. and hardly a lousy league.

the bills are considered hopeless because they lost four superbowls and that must have been horrific for fans but any side that makes four superbowls in succession is hardly hopeless.

[PatrickEwing]

This thread has been far more entertaining than I would have imagined. 

 

[JohnnyO]

Ken....The post says "greatest team in the last 30 years". I can think of 3 teams that were "greater" near that Redskins era. Pick any of those mid-90's Cowboys SB teams that had 5 Hall of Famers on them. You want to look at "greatness" you need to start there.

[ChanceSchmerr]

The greatest team within a given time period is always that person's favorite team, justified however best that person can justify it.  Pretty much every time. 

That's why these "greatest team ever" lists are essentially clickbait at this point.  Teams with longer-term success over that time period generally have more vocal support, regardless whether that team was actually one of the greatest or not, so that's why we see all this patriots blather, but it's essentially the same thing.  patriots fans will say their team is the best because their QB has a bunch of gaudy rings.  That's their justification.  I say the '10 Green Bay Packers were the best, because it's the team that I support and I consider the patriots to be a bunch of overrated cheaters. I'm sure there is Detroit Lions fans out there who could credibly say a recent iteration of their team was the best because Megatron, or because Stafford throws for 500 yds all the time, or some such justification.

Are we each individually right, according to ourselves? Yes.

Does it matter whatsoever? Not a whit.

I say let Ken enjoy his contention that the '91 Redskins were the greatest team of the last 30 years.  The fact that none of us (unless we are also Redskins fans) will agree with him does not take anything away from his belief and his right to enjoy that belief.

 

 

Besides, I like baseball more anyway.  Way more stats to analyse and more games to build a bigger sample size.  That way, when the season ends, we know which teams were the best.