This is surely a case of short term memory. Either that, or the guy simply was not old enough to have seen the 1985 Chicago Bears, who were far and away the most dominant team not only of 1985, but ever, really. They came to dominate the league in a way that is extremely rare in any sport, allowing few points with a vicious, now legendary defense, one of the best to ever play the games. Their offense was the second highest scoring offense that season as well. They started off 12-0, and flirted with the undefeated season, finishing at 15-1 on the year. In the playoffs, they posted the first back to back shut out wins in the postseason ever, blanking the highly regarded (and future champions themselves) New York Giants, 21-0, then shutting out the Los Angles Rams, 24-0, in the NFC title game.
In the Super Bowl, they made the New England Patriots look laughably bad, obliterating them with a level of dominance never before seen in the Super Bowl era. After one early turnover that gave New England a 3-0 lead, the Bears completely took over the game, scoring 44 unanswered point, and ultimately winning 46-10. The game was over by halftime, and the Patriots put up unbelievably bad numbers. At halftime, they had negative 19 yards, and quarterback Tony Eason had failed to complete a single pass against the Bears legendary "46" defense. The outcome was never in doubt, really.
Only the 1989 San Francisco 49ers could even compete with the 1985 Bears in terms of sheer dominance, and they were a notch or two below that. I am by no means a 49ers fan, but will concede their dominance in 1989. They defeated the Minnesota Vikings 41-14 in the divisional round, trounced the Rams 30-3 in the NFC Championship, and embarrassed the Broncos in the most lopsided Super Bowl ever, 55-10.
So, why this guy thinks that the Rams qualify as the greatest, going well beyond both the 1985 Chicago Bears and the 1989 San Francisco 49ers (as well as other dominant teams) is beyond me. He mentions in explicit detail how incredible the Rams offense was, and indeed, they really merited that kind of mention. And like the 1985 Bears and 1989 49ers, they ultimately won the Super Bowl, which is significant (although they also lost it two years later).
But the reason that the Bears and 49ers should rightly be seen as the greatest teams of all time is that the level of dominance translated to more wins in the regular season than the Rams had (the Rams did not even have the best record in the season that they won the Super Bowl), and far more dominant wins in the postseason than the Rams managed to muster. St. Louis finished their season 13-3. The defense that the author of the article speaks so highly of allowed 37 points in the first playoff game alone against the Minnesota Vikings. But the Rams scored 49 points, so maybe you can give them a pass based on the strength of their offense that weekend, right? However, in their next two games, that offense scored a total of 34 points. Not horrendous, but not the stuff of legend. They barely scraped by the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in the NFC Championship Game, 11-6, needing a touchdown late in the fourth quarter (their only touchdown of the game, by the way) in order to win. Then, in the Super Bowl, the Rams put up record setting numbers on offense, in terms of number of yards. Yet, despite largely dominating the entire first half, they were only up 9-0. All of that great ball movement did not net the most important thing: a lot of points. The Rams did score a touchdown finally in the third quarter, but then that defense that this author allowed the Titans to get back in it with a 16-point fourth quarter. Again, this is in the biggest game of the season, to determine the championship. And the Rams almost lost, one game after it seemed like they were going to lose to the Tampa Bay Bucs in the NFC title game.
Is that the dominance and greatness that deserves to exceed the true dominance of teams like those Bears and 49ers?
Sorry, but I don't think so.
All that this guy seems to think matters are stats. The fact that the Rams had more losses that season than numerous other Super Bowl champions means nothing to him. The 2002 Tampa Bay Buccaneers rank 10th on his all-time greatest list, easily surpassing teams that, to me, were actually considerably better. The only Steelers team that makes the list of the top ten for him were the 1979 Steelers, the last of the dynasty teams of the 1970's, even though that Pittsburgh team finished 12-4, and were severely tested by a much weaker team than the 1978 Steelers, who finished 14-2, played in the Super Bowl. Pittsburgh officially won by only 4 points against the Cowboys, but the game was not quite as close as the score would indicate, with Dallas scoring two very late touchdowns to make the game seem much closer than it actually was. The next year, the Steelers scored two late touchdowns to make the final score make it appear that their win was much more convincing than it actually was.
Sorry, but I don't get it.
Now, I am a fan of the New York Giants. But the 2011 team was 9-7, and were facing elimination from the playoffs for essentially the final month and a half of the regular season. They managed to survive to clinch the division with a 9-7 record, tying the record for the worst record ever by a team that qualified for the Super Bowl (tying the 1979 Rams and the 2008 Cardinals), and establishing the record for the team with the worst ever record to win the Super Bowl. They beat Atlanta, 24-2 (the only playoff game that I have ever gone to so far), the 15-1 Green Bay Packers 37-20, and then survived the 49ers in overtime, 23-20, to advance to that Super Bowl. They managed to hold off the Patriots, barely, in order to win that Super Bowl, but it took a narrow escape on the final play of the game, a Hail Mary prayer by Tom Brady that fell just short of being completed, for the Giants to clinch it.
Yet, they are ranked #23 of all time, well ahead of the 14-2 Patriots in both the 2003 and the 2004 seasons? According to this guy, that 2011 Giants team is the best one the franchise ever had, and is considered even greater than the 1986 and 1990 Giants, both of whom had far better records. The 1986 Giants were juggernauts, and were the best team during the regular season, had the best defense, and romped through the NFC playoffs, outscoring San Francisco and Washington by a combined 66-3 score, and then whipped Denver 39-20 in another game that was not as close as the score would indicate, but they are not considered as strong as the 2011 team that went 9-7 and barely survived two of their playoff games? Really? Hell, even the 2007 Giants had a better record, and they historically beat an undefeated Patriots team in the Super Bowl, winning all three playoff games on the road.
Nope. I just don't get that.
In fact, there is so much of this list that I simply do not agree with, that it is not even funny.
However, perhaps you are more lenient? Take a look at what this guy (whoever it is that wrote it, as the actual name is not listed) has to say, and see if you agree with it:
Which team is the greatest Super Bowl Champion of all-time? Posted by Prediction Machine on January 24, 2016
No comments:
Post a Comment