Pats best ever? Most veteran writers not really buying it
I heard a radio talk-show host the other night ask if the New England Patriots were on the verge of producing the greatest season ever. Well, with one more win they're an unprecedented 19-0, so he should have his answer.
But then he went one step beyond. His assumption was that because this could be the best season in NFL history it followed that the Patriots must be the best NFL team ever.
|
|
| Terry Bradshaw and Chuck Noll made history in Pittsburgh. (US Presswire) |
I could name a handful of clubs I'd take over New England, and I bet others could, too. So I telephoned six members of the Pro Football Hall of Fame's Board of Selectors -- each with at least 25 years of covering the league -- for a little perspective on the subject.
Essentially, the question to them was this: What do you consider the best team in NFL history and how would you like its chances against this year's Patriots? Here are their responses:
Len Pasquarelli, ESPN.com
"The best team I ever saw was the 1976 Steelers, and they didn't even go to the Super Bowl. That was the year they could've had the 'three-peat' and Terry Bradshaw got spiked by 'Turkey' Jones in Cleveland. They had to play six games with Mike Kruczek at quarterback, and there were games that, if they threw 10 passes, it was a lot. They ran Franco Harris and Rocky Bleier all day long, and both those guys had 1,000 yards that year. But it was the defense that was incredible. You can go back and check, but I think it pitched five shutouts (it did). There may have been a game where the opponent had a field goal, but there was a stretch of about five games where Kruczek was playing quarterback and they didn't allow a touchdown. They just knew that, hey, this guy is going to hand off the ball all day, we can't give up points and this is what we have to do to win. And they won ... their last nine games. Then they went into Baltimore the first round of the playoffs and destroyed the Colts but lost both running backs. So they went to the AFC Championship Game at Oakland with 'Bubby' Harrison,' who was essentially a special-teams player, having to start at running back and got shredded by the Raiders. I think (team owner) Dan Rooney might agree with me here, but that was probably the best of all the Pittsburgh Steelers teams. They weren't as complete as the later teams because they didn't throw the ball as well, but they were the best I've ever seen."
How they would stack up with New England? "It would be a really close game. New England might beat them, but it would be close. New England has so many wide receivers (Pittsburgh) would be trouble. It was an era where people weren't spreading the field as much, and I know the Steelers had Mel Blount. But, essentially, what New England does is say, 'Is your third cornerback better than our third wide receiver?' Well, no, he isn't. 'Is your fourth cover guy better than our fourth wide receiver?' Well, no he isn't. So that might've been difficult because it was a different era, and teams weren't playing nickel as much. But those Steelers would've rushed the quarterback and hit (Tom) Brady a bunch of times. And they would have run the football, which I think is critical to playing New England. You must keep their offense off the field, run the football and force their linebackers to make plays. I would give New England maybe, maybe, a slight edge, but we're talking about a field-goal game in the last two minutes."
Advantage: New England
Rick Gosselin, Dallas Morning News
|
|
| Vince Lombardi: The coaching legend also had a Hall of Fame roster to lead. (US Presswire) |
How they would stack up with New England?
"If you could find a way to put the two on a level playing field -- don't forget that offensive linemen back then were 250-260 pounds -- I still think the Packers beat anybody, and I include the Steelers of the 70s, the 49ers of the 80s, the Cowboys of the 90s and today's Patriots. The reason: Ten Hall of Fame players and a Hall of Fame head coach. The Cowboys would've beaten any team in the Super Bowl era because of their play-making ability. They had all sorts of speed on defense, and that was the key. They blotted out all daylight and got to the football. Now, if the Patriots win this next game -- they're not 19-0 yet -- we may have a different discussion.
Advantage: Green Bay
Dave Goldberg, Associated Press
"I'll go with the 1989 49ers. It just seems to me they were the deepest in terms of quality starters. Those Steelers teams had a lot of Hall of Famers, but this was a team that destroyed Denver in the Super Bowl -- and destroyed a Denver team wasn't all that bad. It had guys like Charles Haley, who wasn't a Hall of Famer but who is a borderline Hall of Famer. And it had John Taylor, who is another Hall of Very Good Guys player. I remember a game where they played against the Eagles and were down by 11 points in the fourth quarter, and Montana was sacked eight times. Yet I think they scored 28 points in the fourth quarter, with Montana throwing four touchdown passes, to win it. On the first one, Reggie White later told me that (then-head coach) Buddy Ryan insisted on blitzing. Jeff Fisher was the defensive coordinator, and he didn't want to blitz and Buddy did. So (Joe) Montana threw it over the line to Taylor, who made one move on a cornerback and ran something like 95 yards for a touchdown. That opened the flood gates. My sense was that this was the best team I ever saw. OK, so they were 14-2, but the Patriots could've lost two games this year. They could've lost to the Ravens and the Giants. To me, that 49ers' team was the most balanced team with the most quality starters."
How they would stack up with New England?
"I'll take the 49ers. You have to remember, Steve Young was the backup quarterback. In that era you could keep people. It was four years before free agency, and once you got into free agency you diluted teams. I once asked Dan Rooney how many of those players from the great Steelers teams he could've kept if it were today, and he said probably half of them. So in this era you use free agency to do exactly what the Patriots did -- which is to fill a weakness like wide receiver. But look at their linebackers: They have 39-year-old and 34-year-old inside linebackers, with nobody really behind them. And who's the backup quarterback? The 49ers had Young. Just based on that, I'd take the 49ers. Could the Patriots beat them one game? Sure they could. But if you took them over a full season I'd have to go with the 49ers."
Advantage: San Francisco
Len Shapiro, Washington Post
"The Steelers of the '70s were the best team I ever saw, and don't ask me which was the best of the lot. I don't know. But they were by far the best team I saw. They had everything: From (Lynn) Swann at receiver to Franco (Harris) in the backfield to a couple of Hall of Famers on the offensive line to the Steel Curtain, with fabulous linebackers like Jack Ham, Andy Russell and Jack Lambert ... Up and down the line they had, what, 11 or 12 Hall of Famers. And they still can't get L.C. Greenwood in the Hall of Fame. Not to mention a coach who was a great offensive lineman himself. Their offensive line was fabulous, and they knocked people out of the way and took no prisoners. I also saw the '72 Dolphins, which would be number two on my list. Now, can you compare them to the Patriots? They weren't as big. The rules were different. But it was a great, great football team. Like the Patriots, it wasn't a great defense but it was a defense that was good enough."
How they would stack up with New England?
"I would take the Steelers for one very big reason, and don't laugh: Their head coach didn't cheat. I have a problem with that, and maybe I'm one of the few who's over the top on this thing. But I really think until (Bill Belichick) tells us what happened and why it happened and how often it happened I have questions about that team. I think they're a great team, don't get me wrong. And I think he's a great coach. In fact, I think he's a Hall of Fame coach, but I don't think Chuck Noll cheated. I know that organization, and I think they did it the right way in an era when there wasn't all this video stuff going on. In my mind I would pick them over this New England team in a heartbeat."
Advantage: Pittsburgh.
Mike O'Hara, Detroit News
"The best one-season teams were the 1985 Bears and the 1984 49ers, and I think the 49ers were better because they beat a tougher Super Bowl team (Miami with Dan Marino). But the best team I ever saw was the 13-1 Green Bay Packers in 1962. I'm not saying this because they got beaten by the Lions, but the only game they lost was on Thanksgiving Day to Detroit. That Green Bay team was in its prime. It had great players. It had Hall of Fame players. And it could beat you any way. The Packers could run it. They could throw it. And they could play in the clutch. Plus, they were good for a long, long time."
How they would stack up with New England?
"They could do everything the Patriots could. They have a very similar quarterback -- a guy who came out of nowhere. A 17th-round draft pick who was sort of the Brady of his era: A big-time quarterback at a big-time program who was overlooked in the draft and became a starter, fit in and functioned as a leader the way Brady functions with the Patriots. If New England goes 19-0 they deserve to be recognized as having the greatest record of all time, and you can argue that they're the greatest team. They're completing a hell of a run for seven years, and the Packers won what ... five in seven years? But that's the thing about that '62 team. It wasn't at the end of its run. It stood the test of time. That's what works against the '85 Bears because it was a one-season team. That Packers' team took the challenge of representing the National Football League in the first two Super Bowls and carried the standard of the entire National Football League in those games. That's pressure none of these others teams has had to face, and they held up."
Advantage: Green Bay
Frank Cooney, The SportsXchange
"Give me the Patriots because they have all the components of a great team and extremely efficient coaching. They use the depth and versatility and athleticism of their roster without coddling injured starters, and let me explain. They have guys who could play wide receiver when they were kids, but now that they're making a million dollars they can play wide receiver and defensive back. That's the idea there. They have linebackers who could catch passes when they were kids, and now they have them line up and catch 10 touchdown passes out of the backfield and goal line. He runs a very logical, practical, well-coordinated system. I like this team as a team because of the depth of its talent and because of how Belichick uses it. They're better than the components. In Bill Walsh's offense, for instance, it was kind of plug-and-play. (Belichick) does better than that. In his offense he plugs players in and plays to their strengths within his system. It's like man and zone. What I mean by that is he has a concept, then tweaks it into fitting his personnel, rather than having a hard-and-fast concept that you plug personnel into. In a purist sense of how coaches conduct themselves technically, he's extraordinary.
Advantage: New England
