Originally Posted by
Shazam!
The thing is with the Pats is the level of dominance now for 15+ yrs. No team has ever had such a string, maybe the Canadiens and Yankees... other dynasties.
Yeah, no. Much as it pains me to say, the '9ers who won the '81, '94 and THREE MORE SBs in between those were as good as long. So were the late '60s-1981 Cowboys; they just had the misfortune of having to compete with Lombardis five-time-champion dynasty at the start, Pitts four-time-champion dynasty at their peak, and SFs five-time-champion dynasty at their ebb. Dallas lost by 4 to the Steelers dynasty twice and once by 3 to Unitas, but Denver fans remember the margin in SB XII, and remember those "perfect" 1972 Dolphins? Their last loss before that perfect streak was a 24-3 SB beatdown by a Cowboys team that only allowed a SINGLE TD the whole postseason; only the Vikings managed multiple SCORES against them.
When NE* reaches five SBs against THAT kind of competition (and without cheating) they'll be comparable. The '9ers had to dethrone THAT team, plus contend with Ditkas Bears, Parcells' Giants and Gibbs' 'Skins.
That was the good and bad thing about the pre-FA pre-cap dynasties: They provide truly EPIC contests, but left a lot of really good teams on their couches watching with the rest of us. Most notably the Vikings, who were good enough long enough to constitute their own dynasty
—except they never won the Big One.
'69 Vikings: Chiefs year
'70 Vikings: Lost a close divisional game to SF, who lost a close NFCCG to Dallas, who lost a close SB to Baltimore
'71 Vikings: Managed the only playoff TD and only multiple playoff scores against Dallas, in the divisional
'72 Vikings: .500
'73 Vikings: '73 DOLPHINS, whom many who saw both claim better than the "perfect" '72 team
'74 Vikings: '74 Steelers.
'75 Vikings: Staubach christens the Hail Mary in the divisional, blows out the Rams, and loses the SB to Pitt 21-17
'76 Vikings: '76 Raiders
'77 Vikings: Lost the NFCCG by the same three scores Denver lost the SB two weeks later
'78 Vikings: Blown out by the Rams in the divisional a few weeks before Tarkenton turned 39 and retired.
Really good team, just a HELL of a time to try to win SBs; briefly trading away Tarkenton to ride with Joe Kapp didn't help.
When NE* climbs to the top of a heap of champions like that, WITHOUT CHEATING, I'll respect them. The only team that might come close would be the Steelers; the Ravens certainly don't, nor Manning nor Lucks Colts, nor Plummer nor Mannings Broncos, and certainly not the Jets.
Originally Posted by
Shazam!
As far as the Broncos from 96, Denver was set to have a good year. Mike Shanahan brought in premium talent like Alfred Williams and Bill Romonowski. Romo was a huge addition that gave the Defense a much needed anchor and teeth at LB after watching some of the worst Defense I've ever seen (94). Romo and John Mobley would go on to become a great LB duo through the years.
Ill never forget Anthony Miller's waltzing into the end zone backwards as they crushed the NYJ in the first game.
As far as their chances at the Dance back then from every outlet I read, here in NY anyway, in 1997, had the Broncos as the AFC champion. NE won the AFC the year before that should have been Denver's.
Even in 1996 the Broncos were seen as vastly improved.
The Broncos back then were set to have a good year many times, and '97 was hardly the first time they were a popular preseason pick to win their CONFERENCE. But winning a conference has no bearing on whether a team wins the SB—except 1980-1996, when the AFC Champ was guaranteed to LOSE unless they were the Raiders. In fact, before the '97 Broncos, the AFLs all-time SB record was 7-24. That's a "top five draft pick" percentage.
Picking ANY AFC team to win a SB in the mid-nineties was like buying a lottery ticket, but the Broncos and Bills doubly so, because there was a double certainty there: They were as likely to reach the SB as they were guaranteed to get blown out of it (well, SB XXV was close.)
Reply With Quote
