PDA

View Full Version : Best Super Bowl Teams of the 2000s



DB9
03-18-2010, 03:27 PM
1. 2004 Patriots - best offense/defense balance

2. 2000 Ravens - best super bowl winning defense

3. 2009 Saints - best super bowl winning offense

4. 2003 Patriots

5. 2002 Bucs

6. 2008 Steelers

7. 2006 Colts

8. 2001 Patriots

9. 2007 Giants

10. 2005 Steelers

thoughts?

GiantSteps13
03-18-2010, 03:31 PM
It must be really lonely on the Saints message board right now.

ny06
03-18-2010, 03:42 PM
What a shock he puts the saints as the #3 spot.

gmen 24/7
03-18-2010, 03:45 PM
1. 2004 Patriots - best offense/defense balance

2. 2000 Ravens - best super bowl winning defense

3. 2009 Saints - best super bowl winning offense

4. 2003 Patriots

5. 2002 Bucs

6. 2008 Steelers

7. 2006 Colts

8. 2001 Patriots

9. 2007 Giants

10. 2005 SteelersEven if you are a homer can you at least give your defense credit without them you would have lost the ****in superbowl.

Morehead State
03-18-2010, 03:54 PM
Once every 40 years the Saints fans (all 12 of them) get to talk smack.</P>


Its cute really.</P>

Ntegrase96
03-18-2010, 04:05 PM
Once every 40 years the Saints fans (all 12 of them) get to talk smack.</p>


Its cute really.</p>

LMAO!

Yankees807
03-18-2010, 04:28 PM
I guess your choices for the day came down to taking a swamp tour or going on the Giants message boards.Go troll around on the Lions website. I think you will find it much more amusing and entertaining when you debate with fans more your caliber.

DB9
03-18-2010, 04:37 PM
I guess your choices for the day came down to taking a swamp tour or going on the Giants message boards.Go troll around on the Lions website. I think you will find it much more amusing and entertaining when you debate with fans more your caliber.

i see you've found the cut and paste function on your keyboard. you posted the same thing last week.

Yankees807
03-18-2010, 04:47 PM
I guess your choices for the day came down to taking a swamp tour or going on the Giants message boards.Go troll around on the Lions website. I think you will find it much more amusing and entertaining when you debate with fans more your caliber.

i see you've found the cut and paste function on your keyboard. you posted the same thing last week.

Is the 9 in DB how many times the Saints have made the playoffs since coming into the league? Do you have any FACTUAL STATISTICAL reasoning behind your points proving the Saints are a proud,winning organization with tradition? Or does winning a single superbowl negate 40 years of sucking?

rbcarpenter
03-18-2010, 05:11 PM
saints should be # 8 as any one of the above teams listed(except 05 steelers and 06 colts) would have beaten them.[:#]

DB9
03-18-2010, 05:13 PM
I guess your choices for the day came down to taking a swamp tour or going on the Giants message boards.Go troll around on the Lions website. I think you will find it much more amusing and entertaining when you debate with fans more your caliber.

i see you've found the cut and paste function on your keyboard. you posted the same thing last week.

Is the 9 in DB how many times the Saints have made the playoffs since coming into the league? Do you have any FACTUAL STATISTICAL reasoning behind your points proving the Saints are a proud,winning organization with tradition? Or does winning a single superbowl negate 40 years of sucking?

did i ever say that the saints had a winning history? and fyi, the giants have lost more championships in their history than any NFL team...probably in all of sports

smoovej15
03-18-2010, 05:23 PM
I guess your choices for the day came down to taking a swamp tour or going on the Giants message boards.Go troll around on the Lions website. I think you will find it much more amusing and entertaining when you debate with fans more your caliber. i see you've found the cut and paste function on your keyboard. you posted the same thing last week. Is the 9 in DB how many times the Saints have made the playoffs since coming into the league? Do you have any FACTUAL STATISTICAL reasoning behind your points proving the Saints are a proud,winning organization with tradition? Or does winning a single superbowl negate 40 years of sucking? did i ever say that the saints had a winning history? and fyi, the giants have lost more championships in their history than any NFL team...probably in all of sportsYeah? name em smarty pants...

Yankees807
03-18-2010, 05:26 PM
I guess your choices for the day came down to taking a swamp tour or going on the Giants message boards.Go troll around on the Lions website. I think you will find it much more amusing and entertaining when you debate with fans more your caliber.

i see you've found the cut and paste function on your keyboard. you posted the same thing last week.

Is the 9 in DB how many times the Saints have made the playoffs since coming into the league? Do you have any FACTUAL STATISTICAL reasoning behind your points proving the Saints are a proud,winning organization with tradition? Or does winning a single superbowl negate 40 years of sucking?

did i ever say that the saints had a winning history? and fyi, the giants have lost more championships in their history than any NFL team...probably in all of sports

The Giants have also been around since 1920. That's like saying the Yankees lost more world series then any other team.Whats your point? In the "SUPERBOWL ERA" so to speak...... are the Saints not considered one of the WORST franchises...yes or no? It's a simple question.

Feel free to check stats on any major nfl reference site if you need help. Playoff appearances: Saints are the LOWEST team as far as this stat goes. Unless you really wanna count the Ravens,Jags,and Texans who came into the league from 1995-on). Thats pathetic!!!! The Ravens and Jags have been to the playoffs more times in 14 years then your franchise did in 40+. Hows that for a fun stat!

Like I said before....a one hit wonder doesn't negate 40+ years of misery where your fanbase was wearing paper bags over their heads. It's one thing having a fun debate with Cowboy or Eagles fans...at least they have are known for CONSISTENT winning for decades. But a Saints fan talking smack....come on........thats comical.

Yankees807
03-18-2010, 05:28 PM
* correction Giants havfe been around since 1925... not like it matters

rbcarpenter
03-18-2010, 05:45 PM
I guess your choices for the day came down to taking a swamp tour or going on the Giants message boards.Go troll around on the Lions website. I think you will find it much more amusing and entertaining when you debate with fans more your caliber.

i see you've found the cut and paste function on your keyboard. you posted the same thing last week.

Is the 9 in DB how many times the Saints have made the playoffs since coming into the league? Do you have any FACTUAL STATISTICAL reasoning behind your points proving the Saints are a proud,winning organization with tradition? Or does winning a single superbowl negate 40 years of sucking?

did i ever say that the saints had a winning history? and fyi, the giants have lost more championships in their history than any NFL team...probably in all of sportsat least we GET THERE,pal.at least we get there.

DB9
03-18-2010, 05:46 PM
I guess your choices for the day came down to taking a swamp tour or going on the Giants message boards.Go troll around on the Lions website. I think you will find it much more amusing and entertaining when you debate with fans more your caliber.

i see you've found the cut and paste function on your keyboard. you posted the same thing last week.

Is the 9 in DB how many times the Saints have made the playoffs since coming into the league? Do you have any FACTUAL STATISTICAL reasoning behind your points proving the Saints are a proud,winning organization with tradition? Or does winning a single superbowl negate 40 years of sucking?

did i ever say that the saints had a winning history? and fyi, the giants have lost more championships in their history than any NFL team...probably in all of sports

The Giants have also been around since 1920. That's like saying the Yankees lost more world series then any other team.Whats your point? In the "SUPERBOWL ERA" so to speak...... are the Saints not considered one of the WORST franchises...yes or no? It's a simple question.

Feel free to check stats on any major nfl reference site if you need help. Playoff appearances: Saints are the LOWEST team as far as this stat goes. Unless you really wanna count the Ravens,Jags,and Texans who came into the league from 1995-on). Thats pathetic!!!! The Ravens and Jags have been to the playoffs more times in 14 years then your franchise did in 40+. Hows that for a fun stat!

Like I said before....a one hit wonder doesn't negate 40+ years of misery where your fanbase was wearing paper bags over their heads. It's one thing having a fun debate with Cowboy or Eagles fans...at least they have are known for CONSISTENT winning for decades. But a Saints fan talking smack....come on........thats comical.

i have never once stated that the saints have had a winning tradition. of course this is our one really good year. why would I say otherwise? All my talk has been about this year.

greenca190
03-18-2010, 05:57 PM
1. 2004 Patriots - best offense/defense balance

2. 2000 Ravens - best super bowl winning defense

3. 2009 Saints - best super bowl winning offense

4. 2003 Patriots

5. 2002 Bucs

6. 2008 Steelers

7. 2006 Colts

8. 2001 Patriots

9. 2007 Giants

10. 2005 Steelers

thoughts?

I think you gotta put the 2007 Patriots in there as being one of the best.

InEliWeTrust
03-18-2010, 06:13 PM
1. 2004 Patriots - best offense/defense balance

2. 2000 Ravens - best super bowl winning defense

3. 2009 Saints - best super bowl winning offense

4. 2003 Patriots

5. 2002 Bucs

6. 2008 Steelers

7. 2006 Colts

8. 2001 Patriots

9. 2007 Giants

10. 2005 Steelers

thoughts?

I think you gotta put the 2007 Patriots in there as being one of the best.

The 2007 Patriots didn't win the SuperBowl...

nygnyy4life
03-18-2010, 06:27 PM
Giants should at least be 5 or 4, they're the only ones that had to face an undefeated team with the greatest offense ever.

greenca190
03-18-2010, 08:51 PM
1. 2004 Patriots - best offense/defense balance

2. 2000 Ravens - best super bowl winning defense

3. 2009 Saints - best super bowl winning offense

4. 2003 Patriots

5. 2002 Bucs

6. 2008 Steelers

7. 2006 Colts

8. 2001 Patriots

9. 2007 Giants

10. 2005 Steelers

thoughts?

I think you gotta put the 2007 Patriots in there as being one of the best.

The 2007 Patriots didn't win the SuperBowl...


Haha I'm well aware of that, but the thread says best super bowl teams, not best super bowl winners. 2007 Patriots would unanimously be thought of as the best team ever if it wasn't for the Giants ruining it, so I'd probably put them up there as a top ten team that played in a super bowl this decade.

greenca190
03-18-2010, 08:53 PM
1. 2004 Patriots - best offense/defense balance

2. 2000 Ravens - best super bowl winning defense

3. 2009 Saints - best super bowl winning offense

4. 2003 Patriots

5. 2002 Bucs

6. 2008 Steelers

7. 2006 Colts

8. 2001 Patriots

9. 2007 Giants

10. 2005 Steelers

thoughts?

Horrible spot for the Ravens, shouldn't even be on the list. 2005 Seahawks were pretty damn good, same with the 2001 Rams. I'd say that the 2009 Colts should be on the list as well.

Yankees807
03-18-2010, 09:07 PM
Greenca190.... I see your logic where the Thread title doesn't specify superbowl winners,but I have to disagree saying the Ravens don't belong on that list.If they LOST maybe. IMO Any team that WON a superbowl should be on that list before any loser regardless how good their regular season was. Maybe the Ravens offense doesn't deserve much respect,but that defensive unit was as good as it gets in nfl history.

If you search numerous nfl links and peoples opinions that 2000 Ravens D was compared to the 85 Bears. I'm not saying they were better,but they are def a top defensive superbowl team of all time and def deserve respect as a legit team.

greenca190
03-18-2010, 09:13 PM
Greenca190.... I see your logic where the Thread title doesn't specify superbowl winners,but I have to disagree saying the Ravens don't belong on that list.If they LOST maybe. IMO Any team that WON a superbowl should be on that list before any loser regardless how good their regular season was. Maybe the Ravens offense doesn't deserve much respect,but that defensive unit was as good as it gets in nfl history.

If you search numerous nfl links and peoples opinions that 2000 Ravens D was compared to the 85 Bears. I'm not saying they were better,but they are def a top defensive superbowl team of all time and def deserve respect as a legit team.

Yeah you're right, I don't know what I was thinking when I put them down. There are definently winners on that list that are capable of being moved aside for losers though. 2007 Patriots were probably the greatest team we will see play for a long, long time; they should be on that list.

Yankees807
03-18-2010, 09:36 PM
Definitely.... the 07 Pats were insane. They were putting up video game like numbers ripping through opponents.If it wasn't for our Gmen they easily would have been considered the greatest team ever yada yada.

On the flip side......History remembers winners,not "shoulda,coulda,woulda" teams. I kept stressing that to Jet fans late last season.So even though the 2007 Pats were talented and dangerous teams like the 2000 Ravens and 2007 Giants will always come before they do in the history books. Damnnnn 18-1 has gotta sting!

Future
03-18-2010, 11:30 PM
Saints shouldnt be up there.

talkinggmen
03-19-2010, 12:17 AM
hey you are a joke get your stats right the giants have been to 4 super bowls and won three. Your team has been to 1 30 years in the league no wonder they are called the aints.

DB9
03-19-2010, 12:45 AM
hey you are a joke get your stats right the giants have been to 4 super bowls and won three. Your team has been to 1 30 years in the league no wonder they are called the aints.

look at how many championships they lost pre-super bowl era. you can't be a serious giants fan and not know that.

Yankees807
03-19-2010, 12:59 AM
Theres nothing wrong with a back and forth debate over this,but in all honesty would you rather be a team that is consistent the past 3 Decades (Winning a superbowl in each one...which btw NO OTHER nfl franchise can say) or be the franchise that did nothing for their fans in the 70s,80s,90s,alllllll the way until the last year of the 2000's?

So the Saints are the 2009 champs.....great! Ever heard the phrase....it's about time!!!! Or does rebuilding actually take 40+ years. They actually have more superbowls then the Eagles or Vikings. Are you going to tell me there is a SINGLE fan in Philly or Minn that would trade places so to speak with a Saints fan just because they had one bright moment in their entire existence? It's not even like I'm abusing them,I'm stating facts.

Pre-superbowl era....wow....that's stretching the topic don't ya think. That's like Redsox fans talking about 1918 before they finally won in 2004. There's nothing wrong with talking about the past.......just as long as you saw your team equally as successful in recent years.But since you brought it up.....wouldnt you rather be a team losing in conf championship games then say a team never in it?

shagrath1983
03-19-2010, 02:27 AM
1. 2004 Patriots - best offense/defense balance

2. 2000 Ravens - best super bowl winning defense

3. 2009 Saints - best super bowl winning offense

4. 2003 Patriots

5. 2002 Bucs

6. 2008 Steelers

7. 2006 Colts

8. 2001 Patriots

9. 2007 Giants

10. 2005 Steelers

thoughts?You forgot the 2010 Cowboys ( Best everything because I said so ) the rest of those teams are pretty good to..

rbcarpenter
03-19-2010, 02:32 AM
1. 2004 Patriots - best offense/defense balance

2. 2000 Ravens - best super bowl winning defense

3. 2009 Saints - best super bowl winning offense

4. 2003 Patriots

5. 2002 Bucs

6. 2008 Steelers

7. 2006 Colts

8. 2001 Patriots

9. 2007 Giants

10. 2005 Steelers

thoughts?You forgot the 2010 Cowboys ( Best everything because I said so ) the rest of those teams are pretty good to..
yup,they'll be the best 6-10 team EVER![;)]

Future
03-19-2010, 03:14 AM
hey you are a joke get your stats right the giants have been to 4 super bowls and won three. Your team has been to 1 30 years in the league no wonder they are called the aints.

look at how many championships they lost pre-super bowl era. you can't be a serious giants fan and not know that.



Get over your team..you won it lasttt yearr 2010 started this week...focus on what your team has done in free agency...ughh!!! i hate other teams fans!! knhfdkjlhfds;

monster53
03-19-2010, 03:42 AM
this is a joke right! get over your 1 superbowl... dude i want to see brees pass when antrel rolle and kenny phillips is in our back field.... even if kenny phillips was back there you wont not have won that game.... 2007sb was the best in history.... eli put a clinic for brees to watch..... help reggie with his fumbleitis or put kim kardashian in your line up, maybe a fullback?

greenca190
03-19-2010, 11:07 AM
this is a joke right! get over your 1 superbowl... dude i want to see brees pass when antrel rolle and kenny phillips is in our back field.... even if kenny phillips was back there you wont not have won that game.... 2007sb was the best in history.... eli put a clinic for brees to watch..... help reggie with his fumbleitis or put kim kardashian in your line up, maybe a fullback?

Full Pack*

SweetZombieJesus
03-19-2010, 12:50 PM
Best how? Make an argument.

I think most would say "best" would be the 2007 Patriots. 18-0, highest scoring offense in league history. Records all over the place, including the one I'm most proud of -- first undefeated team to lose in the championship game.

By overall performance this decade:

- Patriots (3 wins in 4 appearances)
- Steelers (2 wins in 2 appearances)
- Giants (1 win in 2 appearances)
- Colts (1 win in 2 appearances)

The Saints go with the other one-hit wonders. Except the Ravens, their defense in 2000 was all-time great.

And no way the Saints belong at the top of a list of all-decade teams. Put 'em around the middle at best.

SweetZombieJesus
03-19-2010, 12:52 PM
did i ever say that the saints had a winning history? and fyi, the giants have lost more championships in their history than any NFL team...probably in all of sports

And still they have more championships than all but two NFL teams (7).

No NFL team has won more than 3 Super Bowls since 1985. And the Giants are one of the ones that have.

Ntegrase96
03-19-2010, 03:35 PM
Am I the only one that thinks the Ravens in 2000 were the best of the decade?

It's hard to compare teams across time, even when the time allotted is as narrow as a single decade, but my opinion is that the 2000 Ravens and that monstrous defense would have handed it to any of this decades' SB winners, and contenders for that matter.

BlueFan71
03-19-2010, 04:09 PM
<font color="#000000">Defensively, there is no doubt that the '00 Ravens were the best of the decade. That was the best I've ever seen on that side of the ball, even moreso than the '85 Bears. As a complete team, the '04 Pats were the most balanced overall, so they would get my vote.

The '09 Saints at #3? Please. You can't be that stupid. Maybe 8 or 9. There was NOTHING overly special about that team or that SB in general, other than a lot of folks thinking that the fans somehow 'deserved' it because of something that happened 4 years ago. Sorry, but the rest of the world outside of NO was largely unimpressed.
</font>

Ntegrase96
03-19-2010, 05:03 PM
<font color="#000000">Defensively, there is no doubt that the '00 Ravens were the best of the decade. That was the best I've ever seen on that side of the ball, even moreso than the '85 Bears. As a complete team, the '04 Pats were the most balanced overall, so they would get my vote.

The '09 Saints at #3? Please. You can't be that stupid. Maybe 8 or 9. There was NOTHING overly special about that team or that SB in general, other than a lot of folks thinking that the fans somehow 'deserved' it because of something that happened 4 years ago. Sorry, but the rest of the world outside of NO was largely unimpressed.
</font>

I suppose that's a fair way to look at it, since there really is no way to compare the two teams directly. Finding the team that is most complete, or balanced, would probably be the way to most accurately label 'best of the decade'.

However, I will stick to my original thought of claiming the '00 Ravens as the best of this decade. I just can't get past that defense, even today 10 years later. And we all know defense wins championships [:)]

BlueFan71
03-19-2010, 06:31 PM
If they had a shred of offense, I might have considered them, but if I recall correctly, didn't they go for something like 10 straight games without an offensive TD? That is not just bad, but downright pitiful. That offense should have had to give the defense their entire salaries for the season, because they did all the work.

DB9
03-19-2010, 09:05 PM
<font color="#000000">Defensively, there is no doubt that the '00 Ravens were the best of the decade. That was the best I've ever seen on that side of the ball, even moreso than the '85 Bears. As a complete team, the '04 Pats were the most balanced overall, so they would get my vote.

The '09 Saints at #3? Please. You can't be that stupid. Maybe 8 or 9. There was NOTHING overly special about that team or that SB in general, other than a lot of folks thinking that the fans somehow 'deserved' it because of something that happened 4 years ago. Sorry, but the rest of the world outside of NO was largely unimpressed.
</font>

nothing overly impressive? really? besides being the highest scoring super bowl winning team this decade at 510 points and 64 TDs? Only 3 teams have scored more points and TDs than the saints - the 07' pats, 04' colts and 00' rams but NONE OF THEM WON THE SB. the saints should be in the top 3 by virtue of their great offense alone.

Sundown
03-19-2010, 09:32 PM
<font color="#000000">Defensively, there is no doubt that the '00 Ravens were the best of the decade. That was the best I've ever seen on that side of the ball, even moreso than the '85 Bears. As a complete team, the '04 Pats were the most balanced overall, so they would get my vote.

The '09 Saints at #3? Please. You can't be that stupid. Maybe 8 or 9. There was NOTHING overly special about that team or that SB in general, other than a lot of folks thinking that the fans somehow 'deserved' it because of something that happened 4 years ago. Sorry, but the rest of the world outside of NO was largely unimpressed.
</font>

I suppose that's a fair way to look at it, since there really is no way to compare the two teams directly. Finding the team that is most complete, or balanced, would probably be the way to most accurately label 'best of the decade'.

However, I will stick to my original thought of claiming the '00 Ravens as the best of this decade. I just can't get past that defense, even today 10 years later. And we all know defense wins championships [:)]


Gotta agree that Ravens D was sick!!! Scoring points isnt impressive when the game is geared towards making it easier for an offense to move the ball. The D is already at a disadvantage and for that D to abuse offenses like it did is crazy.

Ntegrase96
03-19-2010, 09:37 PM
If they had a shred of offense, I might have considered them, but if I recall correctly, didn't they go for something like 10 straight games without an offensive TD? That is not just bad, but downright pitiful. That offense should have had to give the defense their entire salaries for the season, because they did all the work.


I don't believe so. I'd have to look it up, but I remember the month long TD drought occurred when Tony Banks was still at the helm. The offense was all it needed to be with a defense like that. We all like to poke fun at Trent Dilfer, but with weapons like Q Ismail, Brandon Stokely, and future HOF'er Shannon Sharpe, he could get the job done. He was a game manager, yes, but I'm sure you remember the first TD pass in the superbowl... it was a beauty. Rookie Jamal Lewis was definitely a force and the o'line, featuring 11x pro bowler, Jonathan Ogden, wasn't half bad. Also on special teams, Jermaine Lewis had a pretty good year in the return game.

It was a pretty capable offense that paired well with the defense. I've never seen a smash mouth team perform at that high of a level.

Again, I'm not really trying to convince you, and I'm not saying that the 03 pats aren't deserving of the title-- I'm just offering my opinion.

BlueFan71
03-19-2010, 10:50 PM
I stand corrected. It was 5 games


The 2000 Ravens (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/sports/profootball/nationalfootballleague/baltimoreravens/index.html?inline=nyt-org)
won a Super Bowl with a ferocious defense, a field-goal kicker and not
much else. There was something almost endearing about their ineptness on
offense, and when they went five games the entire month of that
October without scoring an offensive touchdown, it elicited murmurs
of awe more than the gnashing of teeth.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/sports/football/12ravens.html

Thats still pretty awful though LOL

We all have our opinions, and while I disagree with yours, I will respect it

appletree943
03-20-2010, 10:38 AM
some of yall act like little girls

you guys rode that superbowl champ title in 07 until we knocked ur asses out the following year

let the saints fans rub it in a little ......lol

appletree943
03-20-2010, 10:40 AM
1. 2004 Patriots - best offense/defense balance

2. 2000 Ravens - best super bowl winning defense

3. 2009 Saints - best super bowl winning offense

4. 2003 Patriots

5. 2002 Bucs

6. 2008 Steelers

7. 2006 Colts

8. 2001 Patriots

9. 2007 Giants

10. 2005 Steelers

thoughts? btw, if u havent noticed this a giants message they cant be no lower than #3 or you'll get blasted

jasonbourne
03-20-2010, 10:44 AM
1. 2004 Patriots - best offense/defense balance

2. 2000 Ravens - best super bowl winning defense

3. 2009 Saints - best super bowl winning offense

4. 2003 Patriots

5. 2002 Bucs

6. 2008 Steelers

7. 2006 Colts

8. 2001 Patriots

9. 2007 Giants

10. 2005 Steelers

thoughts? btw, if u havent noticed this a giants message they cant be no lower than #3 or you'll get blasted


Hey where do the eagals rank? O thats right nevermind.....

ny06
03-20-2010, 10:50 AM
some of yall act like little girls

you guys rode that superbowl champ title in 07 until we knocked ur asses out the following year

let the saints fans rub it in a little ......lol

http://i44.tinypic.com/llbub.jpg

appletree943
03-20-2010, 11:48 AM
some of yall act like little girls

you guys rode that superbowl champ title in 07 until we knocked ur asses out the following year

let the saints fans rub it in a little ......lol

http://i44.tinypic.com/llbub.jpg

AND WE STILL BLEED GREEN BRO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DJStoney69
03-20-2010, 12:35 PM
Lol an eagle fan talking smack. You guys rank below the one hit wonder aints

DB9
03-20-2010, 09:40 PM
1. 2004 Patriots - best offense/defense balance

2. 2000 Ravens - best super bowl winning defense

3. 2009 Saints - best super bowl winning offense

4. 2003 Patriots

5. 2002 Bucs

6. 2008 Steelers

7. 2006 Colts

8. 2001 Patriots

9. 2007 Giants

10. 2005 Steelers

thoughts? btw, if u havent noticed this a giants message they cant be no lower than #3 or you'll get blasted

i like to remind them once and a while that the giants fielded 2 of the worst super bowl winning teams ever. the 1990 giants and 2007 giants cannot be ranked that high in the list of 44 super bowl champions.

greenca190
03-20-2010, 10:17 PM
1. 2004 Patriots - best offense/defense balance

2. 2000 Ravens - best super bowl winning defense

3. 2009 Saints - best super bowl winning offense

4. 2003 Patriots

5. 2002 Bucs

6. 2008 Steelers

7. 2006 Colts

8. 2001 Patriots

9. 2007 Giants

10. 2005 Steelers

thoughts? btw, if u havent noticed this a giants message they cant be no lower than #3 or you'll get blasted

i like to remind them once and a while that the giants fielded 2 of the worst super bowl winning teams ever. the 1990 giants and 2007 giants cannot be ranked that high in the list of 44 super bowl champions.

Those 1990 Bills were an extremely comparable team to your 2010 New Orleans Saints. Just saying...

rbcarpenter
03-20-2010, 10:18 PM
1. 2004 Patriots - best offense/defense balance

2. 2000 Ravens - best super bowl winning defense

3. 2009 Saints - best super bowl winning offense

4. 2003 Patriots

5. 2002 Bucs

6. 2008 Steelers

7. 2006 Colts

8. 2001 Patriots

9. 2007 Giants

10. 2005 Steelers

thoughts? btw, if u havent noticed this a giants message they cant be no lower than #3 or you'll get blasted

i like to remind them once and a while that the giants fielded 2 of the worst super bowl winning teams ever. the 1990 giants and 2007 giants cannot be ranked that high in the list of 44 super bowl champions.okay,look.if you want to say the 07 giants were one of the worst teams to win the super bowl,i would grudgingly have to agree.only 10-6,a wildcard,blah blah blah.fine.

but for you to say the giants of 1990 were one of the worst,that's assinine.they were 13-3,the #2 seed behind the 49er's at 14-2.beat the team that was going for the threepeat in the conference championship at their home stadium.then beat the bills(who had the same 13-3 record) in the super bowl.used a defensive gameplan that is now in the hall of fame.the statement that you made just shows everyone on here your lack of football knowledge,low iq,and complete lack of class.can't wait for the moderators to ban your dumbass.[H]

SweetZombieJesus
03-20-2010, 10:21 PM
i like to remind them once and a while that the giants fielded 2 of the worst super bowl winning teams ever. the 1990 giants and 2007 giants cannot be ranked that high in the list of 44 super bowl champions.

LOL you are truly an idiot.

1990 - took down the 2-time defending champion 49ers in the NFC CG ON THE ROAD and prevented a potential three-peat (which would have been the first of the Super Bowl era)

Took down the "unstoppable" offensive juggernaught Bills and the unstoppable K-gun offense. Set a record for time of posession. Oh yeah, and they did it on their BACKUP QUARTERBACK and a washed-up RB. No sweat though, I'm sure Mark Brunell could have won the Super Bowl if Drew Breeze went down. And, oh, by the way, that team was 13-3, same record as the Taints who play in a weak-*** division.

2007 - Beat the Brett Favres in the 3rd coldest game in NFL history ON THE ROAD in the NFC CG. Took down an undefeated 18-0 Patriot team that had the highest scoring offense in NFL history.

Yeah, "worst super bowl winning teams ever". LOL. If you knew a shred about defense, you'd know how stupid that statement is. Not to mention, has your team EVER had a big road win let alone in a championship game?

DB9
03-20-2010, 10:41 PM
1. 2004 Patriots - best offense/defense balance

2. 2000 Ravens - best super bowl winning defense

3. 2009 Saints - best super bowl winning offense

4. 2003 Patriots

5. 2002 Bucs

6. 2008 Steelers

7. 2006 Colts

8. 2001 Patriots

9. 2007 Giants

10. 2005 Steelers

thoughts? btw, if u havent noticed this a giants message they cant be no lower than #3 or you'll get blasted

i like to remind them once and a while that the giants fielded 2 of the worst super bowl winning teams ever. the 1990 giants and 2007 giants cannot be ranked that high in the list of 44 super bowl champions.okay,look.if you want to say the 07 giants were one of the worst teams to win the super bowl,i would grudgingly have to agree.only 10-6,a wildcard,blah blah blah.fine.

but for you to say the giants of 1990 were one of the worst,that's assinine.they were 13-3,the #2 seed behind the 49er's at 14-2.beat the team that was going for the threepeat in the conference championship at their home stadium.then beat the bills(who had the same 13-3 record) in the super bowl.used a defensive gameplan that is now in the hall of fame.the statement that you made just shows everyone on here your lack of football knowledge,low iq,and complete lack of class.can't wait for the moderators to ban your dumbass.[H]


the 1990 giants only scored 335 points that season...by comparison sake the 2009 saints scored 500+. and you cite how the giants held the 49ers in the NFC CHampionship gme...but the fact remains your offense couldn't score a single TD that game. good defense but not very well balanced so can't be one of the top teams ever.

derekunion28
03-20-2010, 10:48 PM
1. 2004 Patriots - best offense/defense balance

2. 2000 Ravens - best super bowl winning defense

3. 2009 Saints - best super bowl winning offense

4. 2003 Patriots

5. 2002 Bucs

6. 2008 Steelers

7. 2006 Colts

8. 2001 Patriots

9. 2007 Giants

10. 2005 Steelers

thoughts?You forgot the 2010 Cowboys ( Best everything because I said so ) the rest of those teams are pretty good to..
yup,they'll be the best 6-10 team EVER![;)]

wow u think like me

rbcarpenter
03-20-2010, 11:03 PM
1. 2004 Patriots - best offense/defense balance

2. 2000 Ravens - best super bowl winning defense

3. 2009 Saints - best super bowl winning offense

4. 2003 Patriots

5. 2002 Bucs

6. 2008 Steelers

7. 2006 Colts

8. 2001 Patriots

9. 2007 Giants

10. 2005 Steelers

thoughts? btw, if u havent noticed this a giants message they cant be no lower than #3 or you'll get blasted

i like to remind them once and a while that the giants fielded 2 of the worst super bowl winning teams ever. the 1990 giants and 2007 giants cannot be ranked that high in the list of 44 super bowl champions.okay,look.if you want to say the 07 giants were one of the worst teams to win the super bowl,i would grudgingly have to agree.only 10-6,a wildcard,blah blah blah.fine.

but for you to say the giants of 1990 were one of the worst,that's assinine.they were 13-3,the #2 seed behind the 49er's at 14-2.beat the team that was going for the threepeat in the conference championship at their home stadium.then beat the bills(who had the same 13-3 record) in the super bowl.used a defensive gameplan that is now in the hall of fame.the statement that you made just shows everyone on here your lack of football knowledge,low iq,and complete lack of class.can't wait for the moderators to ban your dumbass.[H]


the 1990 giants only scored 335 points that season...by comparison sake the 2009 saints scored 500+. and you cite how the giants held the 49ers in the NFC CHampionship gme...but the fact remains your offense couldn't score a single TD that game. good defense but not very well balanced so can't be one of the top teams ever.never said they were one of the best teams ever,moron.simply said that they weren't one of the worst super bowl winning teams ever(which was your statement).and as to your argument that they only scored 335 points that year,well,when you have a real defense,you can afford to average 21 points a game scored when you are only giving up 13 and set a league record for time of possesion.[:P]

rbcarpenter
03-20-2010, 11:04 PM
1. 2004 Patriots - best offense/defense balance

2. 2000 Ravens - best super bowl winning defense

3. 2009 Saints - best super bowl winning offense

4. 2003 Patriots

5. 2002 Bucs

6. 2008 Steelers

7. 2006 Colts

8. 2001 Patriots

9. 2007 Giants

10. 2005 Steelers

thoughts?You forgot the 2010 Cowboys ( Best everything because I said so ) the rest of those teams are pretty good to..
yup,they'll be the best 6-10 team EVER![;)]

wow u think like meyes,we do!(oh,btw,name is derek also,lol!)

DJStoney69
03-21-2010, 12:15 AM
Db9 you are a freaking tool. Have no idea what you are talking about. Worst why cause we don't score alot of points? Who cares. It doesn't matter if you win by 1 or 51. A win is a win period. You scored 550+ points or whatever it is. Most those points were cause your asses were getting handed to you on the road. I'll bet if you played the giants or jets in the freezing *** cold you wouldn't have won. **** you lost to Washington if it wasn't for thier ******ed kicker. And you let Tony romo beat yeah sheesh. That's as bad as losing to the bucs.

Ntegrase96
03-21-2010, 02:40 AM
The fact that he threw the points card out there is ridiculous. Don't get me wrong, I get a kick out of him annoying you guys, but wow... points? You know who scored a lot of points? The 07 Patriots, 98 Vikings, and 83 Redskins-- No Lombardis were hoisted.

DB9, you gotta get some better arguments, man. Points, while obviously important, are an obscure stat to throw out when comparing teams from different time periods. If it's not head to head, points really don't matter much for various reasons.

Anyway, Here's how I'd rank it.

00 Ravens
04 Pats
03 Pats
02 Bucs
07 Giants
08 Steelers
09 Saints
06 Colts
01 Pats
05 Steelers

DB9
03-21-2010, 10:39 AM
The fact that he threw the points card out there is ridiculous. Don't get me wrong, I get a kick out of him annoying you guys, but wow... points? You know who scored a lot of points? The 07 Patriots, 98 Vikings, and 83 Redskins-- No Lombardis were hoisted.

DB9, you gotta get some better arguments, man. Points, while obviously important, are an obscure stat to throw out when comparing teams from different time periods. If it's not head to head, points really don't matter much for various reasons.

Anyway, Here's how I'd rank it.

00 Ravens
04 Pats
03 Pats
02 Bucs
07 Giants
08 Steelers
09 Saints
06 Colts
01 Pats
05 Steelers


what? points show dominance in the regular season and ability to close in the postseason. Teams like the 05' steelers and 07' giants were not great during the regular season but put together some sort of run in the playoffs. you are penalizing a team for regular season dominance? i don't get it.

shagrath1983
03-21-2010, 10:54 AM
The fact that he threw the points card out there is ridiculous. Don't get me wrong, I get a kick out of him annoying you guys, but wow... points? You know who scored a lot of points? The 07 Patriots, 98 Vikings, and 83 Redskins-- No Lombardis were hoisted.

DB9, you gotta get some better arguments, man. Points, while obviously important, are an obscure stat to throw out when comparing teams from different time periods. If it's not head to head, points really don't matter much for various reasons.

Anyway, Here's how I'd rank it.

00 Ravens
04 Pats
03 Pats
02 Bucs
07 Giants
08 Steelers
09 Saints
06 Colts
01 Pats
05 Steelers


what? points show dominance in the regular season and ability to close in the postseason. Teams like the 05' steelers and 07' giants were not great during the regular season but put together some sort of run in the playoffs. you are penalizing a team for regular season dominance? i don't get it.I semi agree with this but hands down the Ravens of 00 was scary and have never seen a D quite like that for awhile best in my mind, lets not confuse the best SUPER BOWL MOMENT with the best super bowl winning team of the 2000's even if we were talking about moment I would still have to give it to the Steelers and the catch that Holmes made to end the game. Not many people thought the Giants game was gonna be toped but the Steelers/ Cards game proved differently well except for the Giants fans....

Sundown
03-21-2010, 10:57 AM
The fact that he threw the points card out there is ridiculous. Don't get me wrong, I get a kick out of him annoying you guys, but wow... points? You know who scored a lot of points? The 07 Patriots, 98 Vikings, and 83 Redskins-- No Lombardis were hoisted.

DB9, you gotta get some better arguments, man. Points, while obviously important, are an obscure stat to throw out when comparing teams from different time periods. If it's not head to head, points really don't matter much for various reasons.

Anyway, Here's how I'd rank it.

00 Ravens
04 Pats
03 Pats
02 Bucs
07 Giants
08 Steelers
09 Saints
06 Colts
01 Pats
05 Steelers


what? points show dominance in the regular season and ability to close in the postseason. Teams like the 05' steelers and 07' giants were not great during the regular season but put together some sort of run in the playoffs. you are penalizing a team for regular season dominance? i don't get it.

DB9 you are by far the dumbest taint fan ive ever seen. Points dont show s!@# especially in a league thats designed and favored towards offensive play. Its defense that shows dominance and a good portion of these teams (minus your taints of course) played great D. The 00 Ravens would have f'd your taints along w the 07 Giants and 02 Bucs. You honestly think your taints will score like that next season?? Please, like i said go and get clean you dirty taint

Hostetler
03-21-2010, 11:06 AM
The fact that he threw the points card out there is ridiculous. Don't get me wrong, I get a kick out of him annoying you guys, but wow... points? You know who scored a lot of points? The 07 Patriots, 98 Vikings, and 83 Redskins-- No Lombardis were hoisted.

DB9, you gotta get some better arguments, man. Points, while obviously important, are an obscure stat to throw out when comparing teams from different time periods. If it's not head to head, points really don't matter much for various reasons.

Anyway, Here's how I'd rank it.

00 Ravens
04 Pats
03 Pats
02 Bucs
07 Giants
08 Steelers
09 Saints
06 Colts
01 Pats
05 Steelers


what? points show dominance in the regular season and ability to close in the postseason. Teams like the 05' steelers and 07' giants were not great during the regular season but put together some sort of run in the playoffs. you are penalizing a team for regular season dominance? i don't get it.

the flip side of that coin is points against dip.... The 90 Giants defense allowed 13 points agame - that is regular season Dominance. Plus - while we may have only scored field goals in the 90 champ game - we got close enough to kick those field goals. other than a 75 yd pass play for a TD the Giants defense stuffed the vaunted 49'er offense along with the Bills vaunted pass attack. All this with a back-up QB and a busted up running back.

calling you stupid insults stupid people.

SweetZombieJesus
03-21-2010, 11:39 AM
what? points show dominance in the regular season and ability to close in the postseason. Teams like the 05' steelers and 07' giants were not great during the regular season but put together some sort of run in the playoffs. you are penalizing a team for regular season dominance? i don't get it.

That's just plain dumb. How long have you been watching football -- 5 minutes?

Look at history's "high scoring" teams -- Marino's Dolphins, Kelly's Bills, Elway's 80s Broncos, 98 Vikings, 90s Chargers, 07 Pats. Scoring a lot of points doesn't make a team dominant. And none of those teams won a championship.

There is a philosophy with pass-happy teams to just pass pass pass and hope you outscore the other team. 9 times out of 10 that philosophy ends without a championship. Most of the time the high-flying high scoring pass pass pass team gets dismantled in the Super Bowl by a defense-oriented team. Happens time and time again. It just didn't happen in 2009 to the Taints, so be grateful you're the 1 out of 10 exception. Dan Marino is jealous.

DB9
03-21-2010, 11:50 AM
what? points show dominance in the regular season and ability to close in the postseason. Teams like the 05' steelers and 07' giants were not great during the regular season but put together some sort of run in the playoffs. you are penalizing a team for regular season dominance? i don't get it.

That's just plain dumb.* How long have you been watching football -- 5 minutes?

Look at history's "high scoring" teams -- Marino's Dolphins, Kelly's Bills, Elway's 80s Broncos, 98 Vikings, 90s Chargers, 07 Pats.* Scoring a lot of points doesn't make a team dominant.* And none of those teams won a championship.

There is a philosophy with pass-happy teams to just pass pass pass and hope you outscore the other team.* 9 times out of 10 that philosophy ends without a championship.*** Most of the time the high-flying high scoring pass pass pass team gets dismantled in the Super Bowl by a defense-oriented team.* Happens time and time again.* It just didn't happen in 2009 to the Taints, so be grateful you're the 1 out of 10 exception.* Dan Marino is jealous.


i never said points during the regular season by itself makes a team dominant. and you are right there are plenty high scoring teams that didn't win a championship. that's why i said teams that are dominant during the regular that CARRY THAT DOMINANCE INTO THE POST SEASON are the true dominant teams. this is particularly true if there is balance on offense and defense. the saints did that. the 1986 giants were dominant by this definition. the 2007 giants were not. the 2000 ravens were an exception because their D was so freakishly good (165 points against).

greenca190
03-21-2010, 01:17 PM
what? points show dominance in the regular season and ability to close in the postseason. Teams like the 05' steelers and 07' giants were not great during the regular season but put together some sort of run in the playoffs. you are penalizing a team for regular season dominance? i don't get it.

That's just plain dumb.* How long have you been watching football -- 5 minutes?

Look at history's "high scoring" teams -- Marino's Dolphins, Kelly's Bills, Elway's 80s Broncos, 98 Vikings, 90s Chargers, 07 Pats.* Scoring a lot of points doesn't make a team dominant.* And none of those teams won a championship.

There is a philosophy with pass-happy teams to just pass pass pass and hope you outscore the other team.* 9 times out of 10 that philosophy ends without a championship.*** Most of the time the high-flying high scoring pass pass pass team gets dismantled in the Super Bowl by a defense-oriented team.* Happens time and time again.* It just didn't happen in 2009 to the Taints, so be grateful you're the 1 out of 10 exception.* Dan Marino is jealous.


i never said points during the regular season by itself makes a team dominant. and you are right there are plenty high scoring teams that didn't win a championship. that's why i said teams that are dominant during the regular that CARRY THAT DOMINANCE INTO THE POST SEASON are the true dominant teams. this is particularly true if there is balance on offense and defense. the saints did that. the 1986 giants were dominant by this definition. the 2007 giants were not. the 2000 ravens were an exception because their D was so freakishly good (165 points against).

I don't know, I'd say dominance is demonstrated when teams peak at the right time. This is more due to effective coaching then ability on the field. You look at examples, especially in recent years - of course the 2007 Giants come to mind, but same as the Arizona Cardinals of two years ago, Patriots in the beginning of the decade, even the Jets of this year. All of these teams hit their strides at the right time (even if some of them didn't win the super bowl).

This is a lot more apparent in watching teams that peak too early. For example, every time the san diego chargers were in the playoffs this decade, last years colts, etc. It's gotten to the point where coaches consider not resting the last couple weeks of the season in order to be in "game form" come playoff time.

The Saints certainly had a dominant regular season, but they carried it out with lackluster performances. Somehow, they managed to win the super bowl still. I can't help but attribute this to not the fact that they were one of the three best super bowl teams of the decade, but simply because most other teams were bad. Example: Consider this years regular season scores - most weeks consisted of 6 - 8 completely lop sided scores, where the games weren't close. This is suggestive that maybe the Saints weren't dominant, but that most other teams were weak.

GMAN2
03-21-2010, 01:33 PM
Amen about the 90 Giant's team.

DB9
03-21-2010, 01:43 PM
what? points show dominance in the regular season and ability to close in the postseason. Teams like the 05' steelers and 07' giants were not great during the regular season but put together some sort of run in the playoffs. you are penalizing a team for regular season dominance? i don't get it.

That's just plain dumb.* How long have you been watching football -- 5 minutes?

Look at history's "high scoring" teams -- Marino's Dolphins, Kelly's Bills, Elway's 80s Broncos, 98 Vikings, 90s Chargers, 07 Pats.* Scoring a lot of points doesn't make a team dominant.* And none of those teams won a championship.

There is a philosophy with pass-happy teams to just pass pass pass and hope you outscore the other team.* 9 times out of 10 that philosophy ends without a championship.*** Most of the time the high-flying high scoring pass pass pass team gets dismantled in the Super Bowl by a defense-oriented team.* Happens time and time again.* It just didn't happen in 2009 to the Taints, so be grateful you're the 1 out of 10 exception.* Dan Marino is jealous.


i never said points during the regular season by itself makes a team dominant. and you are right there are plenty high scoring teams that didn't win a championship. that's why i said teams that are dominant during the regular that CARRY THAT DOMINANCE INTO THE POST SEASON are the true dominant teams. this is particularly true if there is balance on offense and defense. the saints did that. the 1986 giants were dominant by this definition. the 2007 giants were not. the 2000 ravens were an exception because their D was so freakishly good (165 points against).

I don't know, I'd say dominance is demonstrated when teams peak at the right time. This is more due to effective coaching then ability on the field. You look at examples, especially in recent years - of course the 2007 Giants come to mind, but same as the Arizona Cardinals of two years ago, Patriots in the beginning of the decade, even the Jets of this year. All of these teams hit their strides at the right time (even if some of them didn't win the super bowl).

This is a lot more apparent in watching teams that peak too early. For example, every time the san diego chargers were in the playoffs this decade, last years colts, etc. It's gotten to the point where coaches consider not resting the last couple weeks of the season in order to be in "game form" come playoff time.

The Saints certainly had a dominant regular season, but they carried it out with lackluster performances. Somehow, they managed to win the super bowl still. I can't help but attribute this to not the fact that they were one of the three best super bowl teams of the decade, but simply because most other teams were bad. Example: Consider this years regular season scores - most weeks consisted of 6 - 8 completely lop sided scores, where the games weren't close. This is suggestive that maybe the Saints weren't dominant, but that most other teams were weak.

peaking at the right time may indicate dominance but the teams that are dominant in both the regular season and post season should be afforded the highest places in NFL history. the 1990 giants played a lot of close games and i am not ready to anoint them as a dominant team just because they beat the 49ers by a string of field goals and the bills by 1 point. 1986 giants are a different story.

DJStoney69
03-21-2010, 02:12 PM
It doesn't matter how dominate you are during the regular season. All you have to be is good enough to make it to the playoffs then show how dominate you are. The saints were not a dominating team. You play a weak *** division. Besides your just a bandwagon fan. Will jump on the wagon who wins the super bowl next year.

DB9
03-21-2010, 02:51 PM
It doesn't matter how dominate you are during the regular season. All you have to be is good enough to make it to the playoffs then show how dominate you are. The saints were not a dominating team. You play a weak *** division. Besides your just a bandwagon fan. Will jump on the wagon who wins the super bowl next year.

you are contradicting yourself. you are saying that regular season doesn't matter then you say the saints play an easy division. what's it going to be? the saints dominated most of their opponents in the regular season and post season.

Die-Hard
03-21-2010, 04:25 PM
that's why i said teams that are dominant during the regular that CARRY
THAT DOMINANCE INTO THE POST SEASON are the true dominant teams.

If I wasn't having such a good day, I'd ban you for stupidity

If your theory was at all valid, the Eagles would have at least 2 SB trophies in this past decade. You really have a LOT to learn about football, and about common sense in general. I'll leave it at that.

DB9
03-21-2010, 04:35 PM
that's why i said teams that are dominant during the regular that CARRY
THAT DOMINANCE INTO THE POST SEASON are the true dominant teams.

If I wasn't having such a good day, I'd ban you for stupidity

If your theory was at all valid, the Eagles would have at least 2 SB trophies in this past decade. You really have a LOT to learn about football, and about common sense in general. I'll leave it at that.


the eagles never carried their dominance into the post season. they never finished the job. sure they've had good regular season teams but just got to the nfc championship games a few times. that's not dominance.

Die-Hard
03-21-2010, 05:05 PM
So what is your definition of dominance again? The 2009 Saints?

They beat 2 good teams in the regular season(Pats, Jets), and that is giving credit to the Pats, who were nowhere near what they used to be. If you want to call a fairly easy ride to the SB dominance, then thats your business, but the Saints didn't exactly travel a rocky road to get where they went. Put them on the road and they were an entirely different team, and not for the better.The Bucs.. The BUCS! Squeaked 2 past the Skins and the Falcons as well. Lions, Bills, and the whole NFCS....easy wins, except for those pesky Bucs, eh? The Giants were an easy win as well.

Dominance? You dont have a clue as to what dominance is

rbcarpenter
03-21-2010, 05:18 PM
what? points show dominance in the regular season and ability to close in the postseason. Teams like the 05' steelers and 07' giants were not great during the regular season but put together some sort of run in the playoffs. you are penalizing a team for regular season dominance? i don't get it.

That's just plain dumb. How long have you been watching football -- 5 minutes?

Look at history's "high scoring" teams -- Marino's Dolphins, Kelly's Bills, Elway's 80s Broncos, 98 Vikings, 90s Chargers, 07 Pats. Scoring a lot of points doesn't make a team dominant. And none of those teams won a championship.

There is a philosophy with pass-happy teams to just pass pass pass and hope you outscore the other team. 9 times out of 10 that philosophy ends without a championship. Most of the time the high-flying high scoring pass pass pass team gets dismantled in the Super Bowl by a defense-oriented team. Happens time and time again. It just didn't happen in 2009 to the Taints, so be grateful you're the 1 out of 10 exception. Dan Marino is jealous.


i never said points during the regular season by itself makes a team dominant. and you are right there are plenty high scoring teams that didn't win a championship. that's why i said teams that are dominant during the regular that CARRY THAT DOMINANCE INTO THE POST SEASON are the true dominant teams. this is particularly true if there is balance on offense and defense. the saints did that. the 1986 giants were dominant by this definition. the 2007 giants were not. the 2000 ravens were an exception because their D was so freakishly good (165 points against).

I don't know, I'd say dominance is demonstrated when teams peak at the right time. This is more due to effective coaching then ability on the field. You look at examples, especially in recent years - of course the 2007 Giants come to mind, but same as the Arizona Cardinals of two years ago, Patriots in the beginning of the decade, even the Jets of this year. All of these teams hit their strides at the right time (even if some of them didn't win the super bowl).

This is a lot more apparent in watching teams that peak too early. For example, every time the san diego chargers were in the playoffs this decade, last years colts, etc. It's gotten to the point where coaches consider not resting the last couple weeks of the season in order to be in "game form" come playoff time.

The Saints certainly had a dominant regular season, but they carried it out with lackluster performances. Somehow, they managed to win the super bowl still. I can't help but attribute this to not the fact that they were one of the three best super bowl teams of the decade, but simply because most other teams were bad. Example: Consider this years regular season scores - most weeks consisted of 6 - 8 completely lop sided scores, where the games weren't close. This is suggestive that maybe the Saints weren't dominant, but that most other teams were weak.

peaking at the right time may indicate dominance but the teams that are dominant in both the regular season and post season should be afforded the highest places in NFL history. the 1990 giants played a lot of close games and i am not ready to anoint them as a dominant team just because they beat the 49ers by a string of field goals and the bills by 1 point. 1986 giants are a different story.moron,<font size="3">moron,<font size="6">moron---do you even read your own posts.no one here is saying that the 1990 team was dominant,merely not one of the worst super bowl winning teams,which was your argument.if you are so highed up or just so stupid that you can't even follow your own argument,please stop posting.your lack of knowledge and logic makes me sad for the educatioal system in this country.[:@]
</font></font>

n420p69
03-21-2010, 05:19 PM
So what is your definition of dominance again? The 2009 Saints?

They beat 2 good teams in the regular season(Pats, Jets), and that is giving credit to the Pats, who were nowhere near what they used to be. If you want to call a fairly easy ride to the SB dominance, then thats your business, but the Saints didn't exactly travel a rocky road to get where they went. Put them on the road and they were an entirely different team, and not for the better.The Bucs.. The BUCS! Squeaked 2 past the Skins and the Falcons as well. Lions, Bills, and the whole NFCS....easy wins, except for those pesky Bucs, eh? The Giants were an easy win as well.

Dominance? You dont have a clue as to what dominance is


That inbred has no clue as to anything much less dominance.

rbcarpenter
03-21-2010, 05:19 PM
what? points show dominance in the regular season and ability to close in the postseason. Teams like the 05' steelers and 07' giants were not great during the regular season but put together some sort of run in the playoffs. you are penalizing a team for regular season dominance? i don't get it.

That's just plain dumb. How long have you been watching football -- 5 minutes?

Look at history's "high scoring" teams -- Marino's Dolphins, Kelly's Bills, Elway's 80s Broncos, 98 Vikings, 90s Chargers, 07 Pats. Scoring a lot of points doesn't make a team dominant. And none of those teams won a championship.

There is a philosophy with pass-happy teams to just pass pass pass and hope you outscore the other team. 9 times out of 10 that philosophy ends without a championship. Most of the time the high-flying high scoring pass pass pass team gets dismantled in the Super Bowl by a defense-oriented team. Happens time and time again. It just didn't happen in 2009 to the Taints, so be grateful you're the 1 out of 10 exception. Dan Marino is jealous.


i never said points during the regular season by itself makes a team dominant. and you are right there are plenty high scoring teams that didn't win a championship. that's why i said teams that are dominant during the regular that CARRY THAT DOMINANCE INTO THE POST SEASON are the true dominant teams. this is particularly true if there is balance on offense and defense. the saints did that. the 1986 giants were dominant by this definition. the 2007 giants were not. the 2000 ravens were an exception because their D was so freakishly good (165 points against).

I don't know, I'd say dominance is demonstrated when teams peak at the right time. This is more due to effective coaching then ability on the field. You look at examples, especially in recent years - of course the 2007 Giants come to mind, but same as the Arizona Cardinals of two years ago, Patriots in the beginning of the decade, even the Jets of this year. All of these teams hit their strides at the right time (even if some of them didn't win the super bowl).

This is a lot more apparent in watching teams that peak too early. For example, every time the san diego chargers were in the playoffs this decade, last years colts, etc. It's gotten to the point where coaches consider not resting the last couple weeks of the season in order to be in "game form" come playoff time.

The Saints certainly had a dominant regular season, but they carried it out with lackluster performances. Somehow, they managed to win the super bowl still. I can't help but attribute this to not the fact that they were one of the three best super bowl teams of the decade, but simply because most other teams were bad. Example: Consider this years regular season scores - most weeks consisted of 6 - 8 completely lop sided scores, where the games weren't close. This is suggestive that maybe the Saints weren't dominant, but that most other teams were weak.

peaking at the right time may indicate dominance but the teams that are dominant in both the regular season and post season should be afforded the highest places in NFL history. the 1990 giants played a lot of close games and i am not ready to anoint them as a dominant team just because they beat the 49ers by a string of field goals and the bills by 1 point. 1986 giants are a different story.moron,<font size="3">moron,<font size="6">moron---do you even read your own posts.no one here is saying that the 1990 team was dominant,merely not one of the worst super bowl winning teams,which was your argument.if you are so highed up or just so stupid that you can't even follow your own argument,please stop posting.your lack of knowledge and logic makes me sad for the educational system in this country.[:@]
</font></font>

DJStoney69
03-21-2010, 05:27 PM
So what is your definition of dominance again? The 2009 Saints?

They beat 2 good teams in the regular season(Pats, Jets), and that is giving credit to the Pats, who were nowhere near what they used to be. If you want to call a fairly easy ride to the SB dominance, then thats your business, but the Saints didn't exactly travel a rocky road to get where they went. Put them on the road and they were an entirely different team, and not for the better.The Bucs.. The BUCS! Squeaked 2 past the Skins and the Falcons as well. Lions, Bills, and the whole NFCS....easy wins, except for those pesky Bucs, eh? The Giants were an easy win as well.

Dominance? You dont have a clue as to what dominance is


thank you you pretty much said what I was going to spend an eternity typing on my iPhone.

Db9 read what I wrote before you post something stupid. I wasn't contradicting myself. You had probably the softest schedule. Anyone you played near importance was at home. How many COLD weather games did you play? 2014 superbowl at the new stadium and see who the real team is.

DB9
03-21-2010, 06:17 PM
So what is your definition of dominance again? The 2009 Saints?

They beat 2 good teams in the regular season(Pats, Jets), and that is giving credit to the Pats, who were nowhere near what they used to be. If you want to call a fairly easy ride to the SB dominance, then thats your business, but the Saints didn't exactly travel a rocky road to get where they went. Put them on the road and they were an entirely different team, and not for the better.The Bucs.. The BUCS! Squeaked 2 past the Skins and the Falcons as well. Lions, Bills, and the whole NFCS....easy wins, except for those pesky Bucs, eh? The Giants were an easy win as well.

Dominance? You dont have a clue as to what dominance is


dominance is going 13-3 and scoring 500+ points along the way and beating quality teams in the playoffs like the cardinals, vikings and colts. dominant enough to make us one of the top 25 super bowl teams of all time.

DB9
03-21-2010, 06:19 PM
what? points show dominance in the regular season and ability to close in the postseason. Teams like the 05' steelers and 07' giants were not great during the regular season but put together some sort of run in the playoffs. you are penalizing a team for regular season dominance? i don't get it.

That's just plain dumb.* How long have you been watching football -- 5 minutes?

Look at history's "high scoring" teams -- Marino's Dolphins, Kelly's Bills, Elway's 80s Broncos, 98 Vikings, 90s Chargers, 07 Pats.* Scoring a lot of points doesn't make a team dominant.* And none of those teams won a championship.

There is a philosophy with pass-happy teams to just pass pass pass and hope you outscore the other team.* 9 times out of 10 that philosophy ends without a championship.*** Most of the time the high-flying high scoring pass pass pass team gets dismantled in the Super Bowl by a defense-oriented team.* Happens time and time again.* It just didn't happen in 2009 to the Taints, so be grateful you're the 1 out of 10 exception.* Dan Marino is jealous.


i never said points during the regular season by itself makes a team dominant. and you are right there are plenty high scoring teams that didn't win a championship. that's why i said teams that are dominant during the regular that CARRY THAT DOMINANCE INTO THE POST SEASON are the true dominant teams. this is particularly true if there is balance on offense and defense. the saints did that. the 1986 giants were dominant by this definition. the 2007 giants were not. the 2000 ravens were an exception because their D was so freakishly good (165 points against).

I don't know, I'd say dominance is demonstrated when teams peak at the right time. This is more due to effective coaching then ability on the field. You look at examples, especially in recent years - of course the 2007 Giants come to mind, but same as the Arizona Cardinals of two years ago, Patriots in the beginning of the decade, even the Jets of this year. All of these teams hit their strides at the right time (even if some of them didn't win the super bowl).

This is a lot more apparent in watching teams that peak too early. For example, every time the san diego chargers were in the playoffs this decade, last years colts, etc. It's gotten to the point where coaches consider not resting the last couple weeks of the season in order to be in "game form" come playoff time.

The Saints certainly had a dominant regular season, but they carried it out with lackluster performances. Somehow, they managed to win the super bowl still. I can't help but attribute this to not the fact that they were one of the three best super bowl teams of the decade, but simply because most other teams were bad. Example: Consider this years regular season scores - most weeks consisted of 6 - 8 completely lop sided scores, where the games weren't close. This is suggestive that maybe the Saints weren't dominant, but that most other teams were weak.

peaking at the right time may indicate dominance but the teams that are dominant in both the regular season and post season should be afforded the highest places in NFL history. the 1990 giants played a lot of close games and i am not ready to anoint them as a dominant team just because they beat the 49ers by a string of field goals and the bills by 1 point. 1986 giants are a different story.moron,<font size="3">moron,<font size="6">moron---do you even read your own posts.no one here is saying that the 1990 team was dominant,merely not one of the worst super bowl winning teams,which was your argument.if you are so highed up or just so stupid that you can't even follow your own argument,please stop posting.your lack of knowledge and logic makes me sad for the educatioal system in this country.[:@]
</font></font>

uh you might want to reread this thread. there are some here who are saying the 1990 giants were a dominant team because of their defense. nice try. as far as my education, learn how to spell the word education first before calling me names.

rbcarpenter
03-21-2010, 06:45 PM
you might want to reread the thread,idiot.i'm talking about how you replied to me,not anyone else.secondly,i corrected the spelling.third,i will criticize you all day and all night when you come up with these completely moronic statements,such as the 09 saints being one of the best 25 teams of all time.you really do live in your own little shell,don't you?[:|]

GMAN2
03-21-2010, 06:48 PM
what? points show dominance in the regular season and ability to close in the postseason. Teams like the 05' steelers and 07' giants were not great during the regular season but put together some sort of run in the playoffs. you are penalizing a team for regular season dominance? i don't get it.

That's just plain dumb.* How long have you been watching football -- 5 minutes?

Look at history's "high scoring" teams -- Marino's Dolphins, Kelly's Bills, Elway's 80s Broncos, 98 Vikings, 90s Chargers, 07 Pats.* Scoring a lot of points doesn't make a team dominant.* And none of those teams won a championship.

There is a philosophy with pass-happy teams to just pass pass pass and hope you outscore the other team.* 9 times out of 10 that philosophy ends without a championship.*** Most of the time the high-flying high scoring pass pass pass team gets dismantled in the Super Bowl by a defense-oriented team.* Happens time and time again.* It just didn't happen in 2009 to the Taints, so be grateful you're the 1 out of 10 exception.* Dan Marino is jealous.


i never said points during the regular season by itself makes a team dominant. and you are right there are plenty high scoring teams that didn't win a championship. that's why i said teams that are dominant during the regular that CARRY THAT DOMINANCE INTO THE POST SEASON are the true dominant teams. this is particularly true if there is balance on offense and defense. the saints did that. the 1986 giants were dominant by this definition. the 2007 giants were not. the 2000 ravens were an exception because their D was so freakishly good (165 points against).

I don't know, I'd say dominance is demonstrated when teams peak at the right time. This is more due to effective coaching then ability on the field. You look at examples, especially in recent years - of course the 2007 Giants come to mind, but same as the Arizona Cardinals of two years ago, Patriots in the beginning of the decade, even the Jets of this year. All of these teams hit their strides at the right time (even if some of them didn't win the super bowl).

This is a lot more apparent in watching teams that peak too early. For example, every time the san diego chargers were in the playoffs this decade, last years colts, etc. It's gotten to the point where coaches consider not resting the last couple weeks of the season in order to be in "game form" come playoff time.

The Saints certainly had a dominant regular season, but they carried it out with lackluster performances. Somehow, they managed to win the super bowl still. I can't help but attribute this to not the fact that they were one of the three best super bowl teams of the decade, but simply because most other teams were bad. Example: Consider this years regular season scores - most weeks consisted of 6 - 8 completely lop sided scores, where the games weren't close. This is suggestive that maybe the Saints weren't dominant, but that most other teams were weak.

peaking at the right time may indicate dominance but the teams that are dominant in both the regular season and post season should be afforded the highest places in NFL history. the 1990 giants played a lot of close games and i am not ready to anoint them as a dominant team just because they beat the 49ers by a string of field goals and the bills by 1 point. 1986 giants are a different story.moron,<font size="3">moron,<font size="6">moron---do you even read your own posts.no one here is saying that the 1990 team was dominant,merely not one of the worst super bowl winning teams,which was your argument.if you are so highed up or just so stupid that you can't even follow your own argument,please stop posting.your lack of knowledge and logic makes me sad for the educatioal system in this country.[:@]
</font></font>

uh you might want to reread this thread. there are some here who are saying the 1990 giants were a dominant team because of their defense. nice try. as far as my education, learn how to spell the word education first before calling me names.

DB,

With the exception of offensive scoring (rather, they lead the league in points against), the 1990 Giant team meets your definition of a dominant team. They were 13-3, and beat the 49ers and Bills in the playoffs with a backup QB. Your Saints were a very good team, no question. But, lets not be foolish about how good that 1990 team was just because the won games decided by a small margin.

SweetZombieJesus
03-21-2010, 06:55 PM
DB,

With the exception of offensive scoring (rather, they lead the league in points against), the 1990 Giant team meets your definition of a dominant team. They were 13-3, and beat the 49ers and Bills in the playoffs with a backup QB. Your Saints were a very good team, no question. But, lets not be foolish about how good that 1990 team was just because the won games decided by a small margin.

This is why I think he's one of our Cowboy trolls -- in addition to other things, the arguments about dominance being equated to high-scoring blowouts is something one of the Clowslit regulars went to.

And let's not sell the 1990 Giants short; they were dominant if you know where to look -- aside from their impressive feats (dethroning a 2x defending champ on the road in the NFCCG, etc.) they set a Super Bowl record for time of possession, 40:33, and shut down one of the highest scoring unstoppable offenses ever. So much so the game plan is in the Hall of Fame. They were considered "not worthy" at the time for two reasons -- one, the 2x defending 49ers were like Jordan's Bulls, untouchable; and two, the Giants played "old" styles of football, smashmouth, running game, time of possession, etc. -- and that's just archaic compared to the "modern" "sophisticated" west coast offense of Bill Walsh. But they were 13-3 and a team that punched you in the face. Winning 15-13 with nothing but field goals isn't any less dominant than a 51-45 blowout in my book. IMO winning a trench war is more exhausting and a better show of domination than pass-pass-pass. But not in our troll's book -- only blowout track-meets need apply.

Our troll respects the 86 team (39-20 blowout of the Broncos, and a 2nd half romp) so only offensive landslides mean anything to him.

GMAN2
03-21-2010, 07:06 PM
DB,

With the exception of offensive scoring (rather, they lead the league in points against), the 1990 Giant team meets your definition of a dominant team. They were 13-3, and beat the 49ers and Bills in the playoffs with a backup QB. Your Saints were a very good team, no question. But, lets not be foolish about how good that 1990 team was just because the won games decided by a small margin.

This is why I think he's one of our Cowboy trolls -- in addition to other things, the arguments about dominance being equated to high-scoring blowouts is something one of the Clowslit regulars went to.


Either that, or he is too young to remember how good the 49ers and Bills were. This year's Vikings were good, and the Colts were very very good, but to compare those teams to the 49ers and Bills, come on now. Not to mention the difference in the quality of the division teams each had to face. Again, I'm not trying to knock the Saints, they are the champs. But to knock that Giant team is crazy.

Ntegrase96
03-21-2010, 07:07 PM
DB,

With the exception of offensive scoring (rather, they lead the league in points against), the 1990 Giant team meets your definition of a dominant team. They were 13-3, and beat the 49ers and Bills in the playoffs with a backup QB. Your Saints were a very good team, no question. But, lets not be foolish about how good that 1990 team was just because the won games decided by a small margin.

This is why I think he's one of our Cowboy trolls -- in addition to other things, the arguments about dominance being equated to high-scoring blowouts is something one of the Clowslit regulars went to.


But who, though? I see where you're coming from, but I, myself, can't honestly think of one of us regulars who speaks like this. I want to say it's obviously not Dim. Doesn't sound like Crue. Not enough poo poo jokes to be Shagrath. That leaves only CBFfromAsia (who doesn't really start or instigate much of anything) Casvdry and American Ritual-- both of whom will pretty much say whatever they feel like already... why bother to make another sign in.

But I've been wrong before.

edit; of and if it was me I would've gone with being a Rams fan. Satire entertains me most.

DB9
03-21-2010, 08:18 PM
DB,

With the exception of offensive scoring (rather, they lead the league in points against), the 1990 Giant team meets your definition of a dominant team. They were 13-3, and beat the 49ers and Bills in the playoffs with a backup QB. Your Saints were a very good team, no question. But, lets not be foolish about how good that 1990 team was just because the won games decided by a small margin.

This is why I think he's one of our Cowboy trolls -- in addition to other things, the arguments about dominance being equated to high-scoring blowouts is something one of the Clowslit regulars went to.


But who, though? I see where you're coming from, but I, myself, can't honestly think of one of us regulars who speaks like this. I want to say it's obviously not Dim. Doesn't sound like Crue. Not enough poo poo jokes to be Shagrath. That leaves only CBFfromAsia (who doesn't really start or instigate much of anything) Casvdry and American Ritual-- both of whom will pretty much say whatever they feel like already... why bother to make another sign in.

But I've been wrong before.

edit; of and if it was me I would've gone with being a Rams fan. Satire entertains me most.


maybe because i'm none of them?

DB9
03-21-2010, 08:20 PM
DB,

With the exception of offensive scoring (rather, they lead the league in points against), the 1990 Giant team meets your definition of a dominant team. They were 13-3, and beat the 49ers and Bills in the playoffs with a backup QB. Your Saints were a very good team, no question. But, lets not be foolish about how good that 1990 team was just because the won games decided by a small margin.

This is why I think he's one of our Cowboy trolls -- in addition to other things, the arguments about dominance being equated to high-scoring blowouts is something one of the Clowslit regulars went to.

And let's not sell the 1990 Giants short; they were dominant if you know where to look -- aside from their impressive feats (dethroning a 2x defending champ on the road in the NFCCG, etc.) they set a Super Bowl record for time of possession, 40:33, and shut down one of the highest scoring unstoppable offenses ever.* So much so the game plan is in the Hall of Fame.* They were considered "not worthy" at the time for two reasons -- one, the 2x defending 49ers were like Jordan's Bulls, untouchable; and two, the Giants played "old" styles of football, smashmouth, running game, time of possession, etc. -- and that's just archaic compared to the "modern" "sophisticated" west coast offense of Bill Walsh.* But they were 13-3 and a team that punched you in the face.* Winning 15-13 with nothing but field goals isn't any less dominant than a 51-45 blowout in my book.* IMO winning a trench war is more exhausting and a better show of domination than pass-pass-pass.* But not in our troll's book -- only blowout track-meets need apply.

Our troll respects the 86 team (39-20 blowout of the Broncos, and a 2nd half romp) so only offensive landslides mean anything to him.*


y'all keep harping about the 49ers, but i'm not sure you would have beaten them if montana had not been knocked out of that game. besides, the 49ers were at the tail end of the montana era. steve young came in and didn't play nearly as well as montana did.

Jack Robinson
03-21-2010, 08:21 PM
1. 2004 Patriots - best offense/defense balance 2. 2000 Ravens - best super bowl winning defense 3. 2009 Saints - best super bowl winning offense 4. 2003 Patriots 5. 2002 Bucs 6. 2008 Steelers 7. 2006 Colts 8. 2001 Patriots 9. 2007 Giants 10. 2005 Steelers thoughts?</P>


Wow, imagine a saints fan putting them as the 3rd best team of the decade. I guess when the squirrel finally gets a nut he has to show it to everybody that's already got one. </P>


If Favre takes a knee they're not even a superbowl team.</P>


</P>

tonyt830
03-21-2010, 08:26 PM
1. 2004 Patriots - best offense/defense balance 2. 2000 Ravens - best super bowl winning defense 3. 2009 Saints - best super bowl winning offense 4. 2003 Patriots 5. 2002 Bucs 6. 2008 Steelers 7. 2006 Colts 8. 2001 Patriots 9. 2007 Giants 10. 2005 Steelers thoughts?</P>


<FONT color=#0000ff>Wow, imagine a saints fan putting them as the 3rd best team of the decade</FONT>. </P>


If Favre takes a knee they're not even a superbowl team.</P>


</P>this poster is not actually a Saints fan.. He is a banned poster that came back under a new screen name and avi. Or he probably just started rooting for the Saints after the Katrina publicity. A mod has already called him out in another thread.

Ntegrase96
03-21-2010, 08:26 PM
maybe because i'm none of them?

That's kind of what I was getting at playa playa (I'm bringing back the early 2000 slang, what of it?).

Jack Robinson
03-21-2010, 08:28 PM
1. 2004 Patriots - best offense/defense balance 2. 2000 Ravens - best super bowl winning defense 3. 2009 Saints - best super bowl winning offense 4. 2003 Patriots 5. 2002 Bucs 6. 2008 Steelers 7. 2006 Colts 8. 2001 Patriots 9. 2007 Giants 10. 2005 Steelers thoughts?</P>


<FONT color=#0000ff>Wow, imagine a saints fan putting them as the 3rd best team of the decade</FONT>. </P>


If Favre takes a knee they're not even a superbowl team.</P>


</P>


this poster is not actually a Saints fan.. He is a banned poster that came back under a new screen name and avi. Or he probably just started rooting for the Saints after the Katrina publicity. A mod has already called him out in another thread.</P>


That's pathetic.</P>


</P>

tonyt830
03-21-2010, 08:33 PM
1. 2004 Patriots - best offense/defense balance 2. 2000 Ravens - best super bowl winning defense 3. 2009 Saints - best super bowl winning offense 4. 2003 Patriots 5. 2002 Bucs 6. 2008 Steelers 7. 2006 Colts 8. 2001 Patriots 9. 2007 Giants 10. 2005 Steelers thoughts?</P>


<FONT color=#0000ff>Wow, imagine a saints fan putting them as the 3rd best team of the decade</FONT>. </P>


If Favre takes a knee they're not even a superbowl team.</P>


</P>


this poster is not actually a Saints fan.. He is a banned poster that came back under a new screen name and avi. Or he probably just started rooting for the Saints after the Katrina publicity. A mod has already called him out in another thread.</P>


That's pathetic.</P>


</P>


I want to say he is one of your boob crew. But the mod said something to the effect that his IP addy was not coming from the New Orleans area. The mod also advised him that he could go quietly or be embarrased if he wanted to. I'm thinking we are missing one of the Cowboy or Eagles posters that got banned in the passed few months. But this troll is someone we all have seen on the boards before.</P>


</P>


Plus he always ducks questions as related to Saints history with the exception of Brees and the passed couple of seasons. He can't even name the LB corps or their nickname that was in place in NO in the late 80's to early 90's. Well I guess he could if he googled it---LOL!!!</P>

GMAN2
03-21-2010, 08:54 PM
DB,

With the exception of offensive scoring (rather, they lead the league in points against), the 1990 Giant team meets your definition of a dominant team. They were 13-3, and beat the 49ers and Bills in the playoffs with a backup QB. Your Saints were a very good team, no question. But, lets not be foolish about how good that 1990 team was just because the won games decided by a small margin.

This is why I think he's one of our Cowboy trolls -- in addition to other things, the arguments about dominance being equated to high-scoring blowouts is something one of the Clowslit regulars went to.

And let's not sell the 1990 Giants short; they were dominant if you know where to look -- aside from their impressive feats (dethroning a 2x defending champ on the road in the NFCCG, etc.) they set a Super Bowl record for time of possession, 40:33, and shut down one of the highest scoring unstoppable offenses ever.* So much so the game plan is in the Hall of Fame.* They were considered "not worthy" at the time for two reasons -- one, the 2x defending 49ers were like Jordan's Bulls, untouchable; and two, the Giants played "old" styles of football, smashmouth, running game, time of possession, etc. -- and that's just archaic compared to the "modern" "sophisticated" west coast offense of Bill Walsh.* But they were 13-3 and a team that punched you in the face.* Winning 15-13 with nothing but field goals isn't any less dominant than a 51-45 blowout in my book.* IMO winning a trench war is more exhausting and a better show of domination than pass-pass-pass.* But not in our troll's book -- only blowout track-meets need apply.

Our troll respects the 86 team (39-20 blowout of the Broncos, and a 2nd half romp) so only offensive landslides mean anything to him.*


y'all keep harping about the 49ers, but i'm not sure you would have beaten them if montana had not been knocked out of that game. besides, the 49ers were at the tail end of the montana era. steve young came in and didn't play nearly as well as montana did.

DB - the Giant's backup played the entire game. Yes, the 49ers were at the end of their run, but so were the Giants.

Die-Hard
03-21-2010, 09:16 PM
So what is your definition of dominance again? The 2009 Saints?

They beat 2 good teams in the regular season(Pats, Jets), and that is giving credit to the Pats, who were nowhere near what they used to be. If you want to call a fairly easy ride to the SB dominance, then thats your business, but the Saints didn't exactly travel a rocky road to get where they went. Put them on the road and they were an entirely different team, and not for the better.The Bucs.. The BUCS! Squeaked 2 past the Skins and the Falcons as well. Lions, Bills, and the whole NFCS....easy wins, except for those pesky Bucs, eh? The Giants were an easy win as well.

Dominance? You dont have a clue as to what dominance is


dominance is going 13-3 and scoring 500+ points along the way and beating quality teams in the playoffs like the cardinals, vikings and colts. dominant enough to make us one of the top 25 super bowl teams of all time.

So points = dominance, but nothing else does? What about a team like the '00 Ravens? The '02 Bucs? The '00 Ravens were ALL defense, and the '02 Bucs were ALL defense, yet they won their Super Bowls with little to no offense whatsoever. So judging by your nonsensical jibberish, only points matter, and therefore, a team with a crushing defense can't be considered dominant.

Oh wait....they also have to destroy each and every opponent in the regular season, as well as the post season, in order to get your 'dominant' tag.

Lemme tell you something, kid: It is readily apparent that you are either very young, or have not been educated in the finer points of pro football. Your ideas of how it SHOULD be are HUGE contradictions with what the rest of us, who have been watching this game for 20, 30, 40+ years, see things as. Call up any nationally syndicated sports radio show and repeat what you've said here, and I guarantee that you'll be laughed off the air within 30 seconds.

Take a few years, get a bit older, pick a team, and stay with that team for life. It's obvious that you're a new Saints fan, because you never answer any direct questions about them regarding their history, and I personally believe that you're very much a bandwagon jumper. I know you're not posting from New Orleans, and I know this for a fact, but coming in here to banter with people, many of whom have been fans of the Giants for their entire lives(myself included) and sputtering out such ridiculous nonsense is only making you look bad.

Do yourself a favor and walk away

Sundown
03-21-2010, 09:23 PM
I cant believe this dumb *** is really trying to hype up their one an only SB run as "Dominance" and top 5 of the decade at that, then has the audacity to insinuate our past SB runs (1990 to be specific) were/are mediocre. Ive been on these boards a LONG time and seen some s!@# but this is by far the dumbest argument ive ever read. The Giants along w/the NFC East has tasted glory far more times than the taints. Your pansy *** little Sb run wouldnt be able to hold the jock straps of the past SB runs of any of the NFC East teams of old. Get a clue and STFU taint. You should banned on shear stupidity.

shagrath1983
03-21-2010, 09:26 PM
DB,

With the exception of offensive scoring (rather, they lead the league in points against), the 1990 Giant team meets your definition of a dominant team. They were 13-3, and beat the 49ers and Bills in the playoffs with a backup QB. Your Saints were a very good team, no question. But, lets not be foolish about how good that 1990 team was just because the won games decided by a small margin.

This is why I think he's one of our Cowboy trolls -- in addition to other things, the arguments about dominance being equated to high-scoring blowouts is something one of the Clowslit regulars went to.


But who, though? I see where you're coming from, but I, myself, can't honestly think of one of us regulars who speaks like this. I want to say it's obviously not Dim. Doesn't sound like Crue. Not enough poo poo jokes to be Shagrath. That leaves only CBFfromAsia (who doesn't really start or instigate much of anything) Casvdry and American Ritual-- both of whom will pretty much say whatever they feel like already... why bother to make another sign in.

But I've been wrong before.

edit; of and if it was me I would've gone with being a Rams fan. Satire entertains me most.
poo poo? .......hard to see a Saints fan come on to a giants forum to talk smack maybe he should go to the Cowboys forums since we wooped em but they ended up winning it all? Just curious DB why here? Didnt your team bury Eli ( <font color="#ff0000">clutch <font color="#000000">) ( im going to close my eyes like in SB of 07 and hope someone on my team catches it !) and totally destroy the Giants D making em look around like a bunch of no class no talent fluke of a NFCE team? Didnt you bring em in when they were on a hot streak and being proclaimed the class of the NFC and than send em home looking like they could POSSIBLY pull out a win over Detroit or ST. Louis? Eh.... maybe you should stay....</font></font>

shagrath1983
03-21-2010, 09:29 PM
I cant believe this dumb***** is really trying to hype up their one an only SB run as "Dominance" and top 5 of the decade at that, then has the audacity to insinuate our past SB runs (1990 to be specific) were/are mediocre. Ive been on these boards a LONG time and seen some s!@# but this is by far the dumbest argument ive ever read. The Giants along w/the NFC East has tasted glory far more times than the taints. Your pansy a!@ little Sb run wouldnt be able to hold the jock straps of the past SB runs of any of the NFC East teams of old. Get a clue and STFU taint. You should banned on shear stupidity.No hiding my hatred for the Giants but I guess its out of respect for our Division's utter dominance when it comes to Super Bowl history, and rivalry. Maybe its good you now have to deal with this guy and not get overly bored dealing with us Cowboys. .............maybe

shagrath1983
03-21-2010, 09:32 PM
So what is your definition of dominance again? The 2009 Saints?

They beat 2 good teams in the regular season(Pats, Jets), and that is giving credit to the Pats, who were nowhere near what they used to be. If you want to call a fairly easy ride to the SB dominance, then thats your business, but the Saints didn't exactly travel a rocky road to get where they went. Put them on the road and they were an entirely different team, and not for the better.The Bucs.. The BUCS! Squeaked 2 past the Skins and the Falcons as well. Lions, Bills, and the whole NFCS....easy wins, except for those pesky Bucs, eh? The Giants were an easy win as well.

Dominance? You dont have a clue as to what dominance is


dominance is going 13-3 and scoring 500+ points along the way and beating quality teams in the playoffs like the cardinals, vikings and colts. dominant enough to make us one of the top 25 super bowl teams of all time.

So points = dominance, but nothing else does? What about a team like the '00 Ravens? The '02 Bucs? The '00 Ravens were ALL defense, and the '02 Bucs were ALL defense, yet they won their Super Bowls with little to no offense whatsoever. So judging by your nonsensical jibberish, only points matter, and therefore, a team with a crushing defense can't be considered dominant.

Oh wait....they also have to destroy each and every opponent in the regular season, as well as the post season, in order to get your 'dominant' tag.

Lemme tell you something, kid: It is readily apparent that you are either very young, or have not been educated in the finer points of pro football. Your ideas of how it SHOULD be are HUGE contradictions with what the rest of us, who have been watching this game for 20, 30, 40+ years, see things as. Call up any nationally syndicated sports radio show and repeat what you've said here, and I guarantee that you'll be laughed off the air within 30 seconds.

Take a few years, get a bit older, pick a team, and stay with that team for life. It's obvious that you're a new Saints fan, because you never answer any direct questions about them regarding their history, and I personally believe that you're very much a bandwagon jumper. I know you're not posting from New Orleans, and I know this for a fact, but coming in here to banter with people, many of whom have been fans of the Giants for their entire lives(myself included) and sputtering out such ridiculous nonsense is only making you look bad.

Do yourself a favor and walk away
Wow this guy must get to ya since I have been spewing crap out of my mouth for more than a year and have only been replied by you twice! DONT BAN ME!

greenca190
03-21-2010, 09:34 PM
All these conspiracies of who it might be is like an episode of Lost.

Asi-El
03-21-2010, 09:35 PM
This is a difficult question to answer. ima have to go with the 08 steelers but dont worry the aints will have a similar championship drought to the chiefs.

jasonbourne
03-21-2010, 09:36 PM
So what is your definition of dominance again? The 2009 Saints?

They beat 2 good teams in the regular season(Pats, Jets), and that is giving credit to the Pats, who were nowhere near what they used to be. If you want to call a fairly easy ride to the SB dominance, then thats your business, but the Saints didn't exactly travel a rocky road to get where they went. Put them on the road and they were an entirely different team, and not for the better.The Bucs.. The BUCS! Squeaked 2 past the Skins and the Falcons as well. Lions, Bills, and the whole NFCS....easy wins, except for those pesky Bucs, eh? The Giants were an easy win as well.

Dominance? You dont have a clue as to what dominance is


dominance is going 13-3 and scoring 500+ points along the way and beating quality teams in the playoffs like the cardinals, vikings and colts. dominant enough to make us one of the top 25 super bowl teams of all time.

So points = dominance, but nothing else does? What about a team like the '00 Ravens? The '02 Bucs? The '00 Ravens were ALL defense, and the '02 Bucs were ALL defense, yet they won their Super Bowls with little to no offense whatsoever. So judging by your nonsensical jibberish, only points matter, and therefore, a team with a crushing defense can't be considered dominant.

Oh wait....they also have to destroy each and every opponent in the regular season, as well as the post season, in order to get your 'dominant' tag.

Lemme tell you something, kid: It is readily apparent that you are either very young, or have not been educated in the finer points of pro football. Your ideas of how it SHOULD be are HUGE contradictions with what the rest of us, who have been watching this game for 20, 30, 40+ years, see things as. Call up any nationally syndicated sports radio show and repeat what you've said here, and I guarantee that you'll be laughed off the air within 30 seconds.

Take a few years, get a bit older, pick a team, and stay with that team for life. It's obvious that you're a new Saints fan, because you never answer any direct questions about them regarding their history, and I personally believe that you're very much a bandwagon jumper. I know you're not posting from New Orleans, and I know this for a fact, but coming in here to banter with people, many of whom have been fans of the Giants for their entire lives(myself included) and sputtering out such ridiculous nonsense is only making you look bad.

Do yourself a favor and walk away
Wow this guy must get to ya since I have been spewing crap out of my mouth for more than a year and have only been replied by you twice! DONT BAN ME!


Your like the lil kid around here crying for attention all the time.. The mods feel bad for you thats why.. No one takes anything you say for real...

DB9
03-21-2010, 09:40 PM
So what is your definition of dominance again? The 2009 Saints?

They beat 2 good teams in the regular season(Pats, Jets), and that is giving credit to the Pats, who were nowhere near what they used to be. If you want to call a fairly easy ride to the SB dominance, then thats your business, but the Saints didn't exactly travel a rocky road to get where they went. Put them on the road and they were an entirely different team, and not for the better.The Bucs.. The BUCS! Squeaked 2 past the Skins and the Falcons as well. Lions, Bills, and the whole NFCS....easy wins, except for those pesky Bucs, eh? The Giants were an easy win as well.

Dominance? You dont have a clue as to what dominance is


dominance is going 13-3 and scoring 500+ points along the way and beating quality teams in the playoffs like the cardinals, vikings and colts. dominant enough to make us one of the top 25 super bowl teams of all time.

So points = dominance, but nothing else does? What about a team like the '00 Ravens? The '02 Bucs? The '00 Ravens were ALL defense, and the '02 Bucs were ALL defense, yet they won their Super Bowls with little to no offense whatsoever. So judging by your nonsensical jibberish, only points matter, and therefore, a team with a crushing defense can't be considered dominant.

Oh wait....they also have to destroy each and every opponent in the regular season, as well as the post season, in order to get your 'dominant' tag.

Lemme tell you something, kid: It is readily apparent that you are either very young, or have not been educated in the finer points of pro football. Your ideas of how it SHOULD be are HUGE contradictions with what the rest of us, who have been watching this game for 20, 30, 40+ years, see things as. Call up any nationally syndicated sports radio show and repeat what you've said here, and I guarantee that you'll be laughed off the air within 30 seconds.

Take a few years, get a bit older, pick a team, and stay with that team for life. It's obvious that you're a new Saints fan, because you never answer any direct questions about them regarding their history, and I personally believe that you're very much a bandwagon jumper. I know you're not posting from New Orleans, and I know this for a fact, but coming in here to banter with people, many of whom have been fans of the Giants for their entire lives(myself included) and sputtering out such ridiculous nonsense is only making you look bad.

Do yourself a favor and walk away


if you are such a huge expert, then why didn't the America's Game series...a ranking of the top 20 SB teams of all time not include the 00' Ravens and 02' Bucs? That list was decided by NFL experts from around the country. The common theme with the top 20 teams THEY chose was they were well balanced on offense and defense and had great regular seasons. you don't see any scrub teams on that list that get lucky and somehow make their way to a super bowl win. Sorry but you haven't disproven my point that the VERY BEST teams of all time (ie-top 25) are the ones with all these qualities. even the 1985 bears which I think is the best of all time had a great offense to go along with that world class defense.

GMAN2
03-21-2010, 09:41 PM
DB,

With the exception of offensive scoring (rather, they lead the league in points against), the 1990 Giant team meets your definition of a dominant team. They were 13-3, and beat the 49ers and Bills in the playoffs with a backup QB. Your Saints were a very good team, no question. But, lets not be foolish about how good that 1990 team was just because the won games decided by a small margin.

This is why I think he's one of our Cowboy trolls -- in addition to other things, the arguments about dominance being equated to high-scoring blowouts is something one of the Clowslit regulars went to.


But who, though? I see where you're coming from, but I, myself, can't honestly think of one of us regulars who speaks like this. I want to say it's obviously not Dim. Doesn't sound like Crue. Not enough poo poo jokes to be Shagrath. That leaves only CBFfromAsia (who doesn't really start or instigate much of anything) Casvdry and American Ritual-- both of whom will pretty much say whatever they feel like already... why bother to make another sign in.

But I've been wrong before.

edit; of and if it was me I would've gone with being a Rams fan. Satire entertains me most.
poo poo? .......hard to see a Saints fan come on to a giants forum to talk smack maybe he should go to the Cowboys forums since we wooped em but they ended up winning it all? Just curious DB why here? Didnt your team bury Eli ( <font color="#ff0000">clutch <font color="#000000">)* ( im going to close my eyes like in SB of 07 and hope someone on my team catches it !) and totally destroy the Giants D making em look around like a bunch of no class no talent fluke of a NFCE team? Didnt you bring em in when they were on a hot streak and being proclaimed the class of the NFC and than send em home looking like they could POSSIBLY pull out a win over Detroit or ST. Louis? Eh.... maybe you should stay....</font></font>


The Giant's Defense was terrible this year, no doubt. But lets not forget they played well enough to beat the Cowboys, twice. As for QBs, remind me again about all that Romo has accomplished. Don't get me wrong, I like Romo as a QB, but lets not act like he is P. Manning. And as for leadership skills, didn't Romo's leadership skills get called in to question, and TO get shown the door because of Romo's inability to deal with him?

Sundown
03-21-2010, 09:49 PM
I cant believe this dumb***** is really trying to hype up their one an only SB run as "Dominance" and top 5 of the decade at that, then has the audacity to insinuate our past SB runs (1990 to be specific) were/are mediocre. Ive been on these boards a LONG time and seen some s!@# but this is by far the dumbest argument ive ever read. The Giants along w/the NFC East has tasted glory far more times than the taints. Your pansy a!@ little Sb run wouldnt be able to hold the jock straps of the past SB runs of any of the NFC East teams of old. Get a clue and STFU taint. You should banned on shear stupidity.No hiding my hatred for the Giants but I guess its out of respect for our Division's utter dominance when it comes to Super Bowl history, and rivalry. Maybe its good you now have to deal with this guy and not get overly bored dealing with us Cowboys. .............maybe


Smack talk w/you scum bags is always fun, Im all for a good ol smack talk debate w/a fan of a team thats actually done something of significance and made the NFL what it is. All the teams in the East has done something memorable in this league, the taints not so much. To me the taints will forever be the team that wore bags over their heads in shame. They havent earned my respect to take him or his team seriously.

Ntegrase96
03-21-2010, 10:07 PM
poo poo? .......


no offense, Shag. You have a unique style and it's hilarious!

gmen 24/7
03-21-2010, 10:19 PM
This has to be DarkCrusader man.

Die-Hard
03-21-2010, 10:35 PM
So what is your definition of dominance again? The 2009 Saints?

They beat 2 good teams in the regular season(Pats, Jets), and that is giving credit to the Pats, who were nowhere near what they used to be. If you want to call a fairly easy ride to the SB dominance, then thats your business, but the Saints didn't exactly travel a rocky road to get where they went. Put them on the road and they were an entirely different team, and not for the better.The Bucs.. The BUCS! Squeaked 2 past the Skins and the Falcons as well. Lions, Bills, and the whole NFCS....easy wins, except for those pesky Bucs, eh? The Giants were an easy win as well.

Dominance? You dont have a clue as to what dominance is


dominance is going 13-3 and scoring 500+ points along the way and beating quality teams in the playoffs like the cardinals, vikings and colts. dominant enough to make us one of the top 25 super bowl teams of all time.

So points = dominance, but nothing else does? What about a team like the '00 Ravens? The '02 Bucs? The '00 Ravens were ALL defense, and the '02 Bucs were ALL defense, yet they won their Super Bowls with little to no offense whatsoever. So judging by your nonsensical jibberish, only points matter, and therefore, a team with a crushing defense can't be considered dominant.

Oh wait....they also have to destroy each and every opponent in the regular season, as well as the post season, in order to get your 'dominant' tag.

Lemme tell you something, kid: It is readily apparent that you are either very young, or have not been educated in the finer points of pro football. Your ideas of how it SHOULD be are HUGE contradictions with what the rest of us, who have been watching this game for 20, 30, 40+ years, see things as. Call up any nationally syndicated sports radio show and repeat what you've said here, and I guarantee that you'll be laughed off the air within 30 seconds.

Take a few years, get a bit older, pick a team, and stay with that team for life. It's obvious that you're a new Saints fan, because you never answer any direct questions about them regarding their history, and I personally believe that you're very much a bandwagon jumper. I know you're not posting from New Orleans, and I know this for a fact, but coming in here to banter with people, many of whom have been fans of the Giants for their entire lives(myself included) and sputtering out such ridiculous nonsense is only making you look bad.

Do yourself a favor and walk away


if you are such a huge expert, then why didn't the America's Game series...a ranking of the top 20 SB teams of all time not include the 00' Ravens and 02' Bucs? That list was decided by NFL experts from around the country. The common theme with the top 20 teams THEY chose was they were well balanced on offense and defense and had great regular seasons. you don't see any scrub teams on that list that get lucky and somehow make their way to a super bowl win. Sorry but you haven't disproven my point that the VERY BEST teams of all time (ie-top 25) are the ones with all these qualities. even the 1985 bears which I think is the best of all time had a great offense to go along with that world class defense.

America's Game series? Who we're their top 20? And who the hell are they? Have a link to anything?

And I'm certainly not a huge expert, but I know enough about NFL history and have seen 30+ years of football games to realize that some teams, while not all that balanced, were outstanding football teams, and have been historically noted as such.

Scrub teams with Super Bowl wins...

I'm at a loss for words, because there isn't a bigger oxymoron known to man than that one.

Tell me about this America's Game thing

gmen 24/7
03-21-2010, 10:40 PM
So what is your definition of dominance again? The 2009 Saints?

They beat 2 good teams in the regular season(Pats, Jets), and that is giving credit to the Pats, who were nowhere near what they used to be. If you want to call a fairly easy ride to the SB dominance, then thats your business, but the Saints didn't exactly travel a rocky road to get where they went. Put them on the road and they were an entirely different team, and not for the better.The Bucs.. The BUCS! Squeaked 2 past the Skins and the Falcons as well. Lions, Bills, and the whole NFCS....easy wins, except for those pesky Bucs, eh? The Giants were an easy win as well.

Dominance? You dont have a clue as to what dominance is


dominance is going 13-3 and scoring 500+ points along the way and beating quality teams in the playoffs like the cardinals, vikings and colts. dominant enough to make us one of the top 25 super bowl teams of all time.

So points = dominance, but nothing else does? What about a team like the '00 Ravens? The '02 Bucs? The '00 Ravens were ALL defense, and the '02 Bucs were ALL defense, yet they won their Super Bowls with little to no offense whatsoever. So judging by your nonsensical jibberish, only points matter, and therefore, a team with a crushing defense can't be considered dominant.

Oh wait....they also have to destroy each and every opponent in the regular season, as well as the post season, in order to get your 'dominant' tag.

Lemme tell you something, kid: It is readily apparent that you are either very young, or have not been educated in the finer points of pro football. Your ideas of how it SHOULD be are HUGE contradictions with what the rest of us, who have been watching this game for 20, 30, 40+ years, see things as. Call up any nationally syndicated sports radio show and repeat what you've said here, and I guarantee that you'll be laughed off the air within 30 seconds.

Take a few years, get a bit older, pick a team, and stay with that team for life. It's obvious that you're a new Saints fan, because you never answer any direct questions about them regarding their history, and I personally believe that you're very much a bandwagon jumper. I know you're not posting from New Orleans, and I know this for a fact, but coming in here to banter with people, many of whom have been fans of the Giants for their entire lives(myself included) and sputtering out such ridiculous nonsense is only making you look bad.

Do yourself a favor and walk away


if you are such a huge expert, then why didn't the America's Game series...a ranking of the top 20 SB teams of all time not include the 00' Ravens and 02' Bucs? That list was decided by NFL experts from around the country. The common theme with the top 20 teams THEY chose was they were well balanced on offense and defense and had great regular seasons. you don't see any scrub teams on that list that get lucky and somehow make their way to a super bowl win. Sorry but you haven't disproven my point that the VERY BEST teams of all time (ie-top 25) are the ones with all these qualities. even the 1985 bears which I think is the best of all time had a great offense to go along with that world class defense.

America's Game series? Who we're their top 20? And who the hell are they? Have a link to anything?

And I'm certainly not a huge expert, but I know enough about NFL history and have seen 30+ years of football games to realize that some teams, while not all that balanced, were outstanding football teams, and have been historically noted as such.

Scrub teams with Super Bowl wins...

I'm at a loss for words, because there isn't a bigger oxymoron known to man than that one.

<font size="6">Tell me about this America's Game thing</font>
It is this thing were they make a DVD about a team that won a Superbowl showing you things behind the scenes and describing their season anyway the people who made it aren't really even experts this guys is just pulling stuff out his *** again.

gmen 24/7
03-21-2010, 10:41 PM
Evil of the double post.

DB9
03-21-2010, 10:55 PM
So what is your definition of dominance again? The 2009 Saints?

They beat 2 good teams in the regular season(Pats, Jets), and that is giving credit to the Pats, who were nowhere near what they used to be. If you want to call a fairly easy ride to the SB dominance, then thats your business, but the Saints didn't exactly travel a rocky road to get where they went. Put them on the road and they were an entirely different team, and not for the better.The Bucs.. The BUCS! Squeaked 2 past the Skins and the Falcons as well. Lions, Bills, and the whole NFCS....easy wins, except for those pesky Bucs, eh? The Giants were an easy win as well.

Dominance? You dont have a clue as to what dominance is


dominance is going 13-3 and scoring 500+ points along the way and beating quality teams in the playoffs like the cardinals, vikings and colts. dominant enough to make us one of the top 25 super bowl teams of all time.

So points = dominance, but nothing else does? What about a team like the '00 Ravens? The '02 Bucs? The '00 Ravens were ALL defense, and the '02 Bucs were ALL defense, yet they won their Super Bowls with little to no offense whatsoever. So judging by your nonsensical jibberish, only points matter, and therefore, a team with a crushing defense can't be considered dominant.

Oh wait....they also have to destroy each and every opponent in the regular season, as well as the post season, in order to get your 'dominant' tag.

Lemme tell you something, kid: It is readily apparent that you are either very young, or have not been educated in the finer points of pro football. Your ideas of how it SHOULD be are HUGE contradictions with what the rest of us, who have been watching this game for 20, 30, 40+ years, see things as. Call up any nationally syndicated sports radio show and repeat what you've said here, and I guarantee that you'll be laughed off the air within 30 seconds.

Take a few years, get a bit older, pick a team, and stay with that team for life. It's obvious that you're a new Saints fan, because you never answer any direct questions about them regarding their history, and I personally believe that you're very much a bandwagon jumper. I know you're not posting from New Orleans, and I know this for a fact, but coming in here to banter with people, many of whom have been fans of the Giants for their entire lives(myself included) and sputtering out such ridiculous nonsense is only making you look bad.

Do yourself a favor and walk away


if you are such a huge expert, then why didn't the America's Game series...a ranking of the top 20 SB teams of all time not include the 00' Ravens and 02' Bucs? That list was decided by NFL experts from around the country. The common theme with the top 20 teams THEY chose was they were well balanced on offense and defense and had great regular seasons. you don't see any scrub teams on that list that get lucky and somehow make their way to a super bowl win. Sorry but you haven't disproven my point that the VERY BEST teams of all time (ie-top 25) are the ones with all these qualities. even the 1985 bears which I think is the best of all time had a great offense to go along with that world class defense.

America's Game series? Who we're their top 20? And who the hell are they? Have a link to anything?

And I'm certainly not a huge expert, but I know enough about NFL history and have seen 30+ years of football games to realize that some teams, while not all that balanced, were outstanding football teams, and have been historically noted as such.

Scrub teams with Super Bowl wins...

I'm at a loss for words, because there isn't a bigger oxymoron known to man than that one.

Tell me about this America's Game thing


you can't be serious. this is one of the most widely acclaimed football series ever. even saints fans know what america's game is. here is the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Game:_The_Super_Bowl_Champions

and to the guy above who says they are not experts who made it, you are right. but the actual rankings are done by NFL experts from around the country (not just steve sabol of nfl films). i think the rankings are very good and they were done in 2005 or 2006.

gmen 24/7
03-21-2010, 11:01 PM
So what is your definition of dominance again? The 2009 Saints?

They beat 2 good teams in the regular season(Pats, Jets), and that is giving credit to the Pats, who were nowhere near what they used to be. If you want to call a fairly easy ride to the SB dominance, then thats your business, but the Saints didn't exactly travel a rocky road to get where they went. Put them on the road and they were an entirely different team, and not for the better.The Bucs.. The BUCS! Squeaked 2 past the Skins and the Falcons as well. Lions, Bills, and the whole NFCS....easy wins, except for those pesky Bucs, eh? The Giants were an easy win as well.

Dominance? You dont have a clue as to what dominance is


dominance is going 13-3 and scoring 500+ points along the way and beating quality teams in the playoffs like the cardinals, vikings and colts. dominant enough to make us one of the top 25 super bowl teams of all time.

So points = dominance, but nothing else does? What about a team like the '00 Ravens? The '02 Bucs? The '00 Ravens were ALL defense, and the '02 Bucs were ALL defense, yet they won their Super Bowls with little to no offense whatsoever. So judging by your nonsensical jibberish, only points matter, and therefore, a team with a crushing defense can't be considered dominant.

Oh wait....they also have to destroy each and every opponent in the regular season, as well as the post season, in order to get your 'dominant' tag.

Lemme tell you something, kid: It is readily apparent that you are either very young, or have not been educated in the finer points of pro football. Your ideas of how it SHOULD be are HUGE contradictions with what the rest of us, who have been watching this game for 20, 30, 40+ years, see things as. Call up any nationally syndicated sports radio show and repeat what you've said here, and I guarantee that you'll be laughed off the air within 30 seconds.

Take a few years, get a bit older, pick a team, and stay with that team for life. It's obvious that you're a new Saints fan, because you never answer any direct questions about them regarding their history, and I personally believe that you're very much a bandwagon jumper. I know you're not posting from New Orleans, and I know this for a fact, but coming in here to banter with people, many of whom have been fans of the Giants for their entire lives(myself included) and sputtering out such ridiculous nonsense is only making you look bad.

Do yourself a favor and walk away


if you are such a huge expert, then why didn't the America's Game series...a ranking of the top 20 SB teams of all time not include the 00' Ravens and 02' Bucs? That list was decided by NFL experts from around the country. The common theme with the top 20 teams THEY chose was they were well balanced on offense and defense and had great regular seasons. you don't see any scrub teams on that list that get lucky and somehow make their way to a super bowl win. Sorry but you haven't disproven my point that the VERY BEST teams of all time (ie-top 25) are the ones with all these qualities. even the 1985 bears which I think is the best of all time had a great offense to go along with that world class defense.

America's Game series? Who we're their top 20? And who the hell are they? Have a link to anything?

And I'm certainly not a huge expert, but I know enough about NFL history and have seen 30+ years of football games to realize that some teams, while not all that balanced, were outstanding football teams, and have been historically noted as such.

Scrub teams with Super Bowl wins...

I'm at a loss for words, because there isn't a bigger oxymoron known to man than that one.

Tell me about this America's Game thing


you can't be serious. this is one of the most widely acclaimed football series ever. even saints fans know what america's game is. here is the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Game:_The_Super_Bowl_Champions

and to the guy above who says they are not experts who made it, you are right. but the actual rankings are done by NFL experts from around the country (not just steve sabol of nfl films). i think the rankings are very good and they were done in 2005 or 2006.Ok can you tell me what do you have against the Giants? Like ok I know the Bucs are too easy but how about annoying the Panthers or the Falcons fans?

tonyt830
03-21-2010, 11:34 PM
This has to be DarkCrusader man.
No, I think there is another poster currently that is the old dark crusader---its not DB9. I don't want to call him out, but he showed up shortly after Dark crusader was banned.</P>


</P>


But this DB9 is definitely a former Eagles or Cowboys poster---he's a troll that has no true allegiance to any team. He's a bandwagon fan.. He avoids all Saints questions directed towards him. He will slip up soon enough and be banned again. Or he will just be a pansy *** and change his screen name and avi. The mods will get wise to this</P>

tonyt830
03-21-2010, 11:38 PM
So what is your definition of dominance again? The 2009 Saints?

They beat 2 good teams in the regular season(Pats, Jets), and that is giving credit to the Pats, who were nowhere near what they used to be. If you want to call a fairly easy ride to the SB dominance, then thats your business, but the Saints didn't exactly travel a rocky road to get where they went. Put them on the road and they were an entirely different team, and not for the better.The Bucs.. The BUCS! Squeaked 2 past the Skins and the Falcons as well. Lions, Bills, and the whole NFCS....easy wins, except for those pesky Bucs, eh? The Giants were an easy win as well.

Dominance? You dont have a clue as to what dominance is
dominance is going 13-3 and scoring 500+ points along the way and beating quality teams in the playoffs like the cardinals, vikings and colts. dominant enough to make us one of the top 25 super bowl teams of all time.

So points = dominance, but nothing else does? What about a team like the '00 Ravens? The '02 Bucs? The '00 Ravens were ALL defense, and the '02 Bucs were ALL defense, yet they won their Super Bowls with little to no offense whatsoever. So judging by your nonsensical jibberish, only points matter, and therefore, a team with a crushing defense can't be considered dominant.

Oh wait....they also have to destroy each and every opponent in the regular season, as well as the post season, in order to get your 'dominant' tag.

Lemme tell you something, kid: It is readily apparent that you are either very young, or have not been educated in the finer points of pro football. Your ideas of how it SHOULD be are HUGE contradictions with what the rest of us, who have been watching this game for 20, 30, 40+ years, see things as. Call up any nationally syndicated sports radio show and repeat what you've said here, and I guarantee that you'll be laughed off the air within 30 seconds.

Take a few years, get a bit older, pick a team, and stay with that team for life. It's obvious that you're a new Saints fan, because you never answer any direct questions about them regarding their history, and I personally believe that you're very much a bandwagon jumper. I know you're not posting from New Orleans, and I know this for a fact, but coming in here to banter with people, many of whom have been fans of the Giants for their entire lives(myself included) and sputtering out such ridiculous nonsense is only making you look bad.

Do yourself a favor and walk away
if you are such a huge expert, then why didn't the America's Game series...a ranking of the top 20 SB teams of all time not include the 00' Ravens and 02' Bucs? That list was decided by NFL experts from around the country. The common theme with the top 20 teams THEY chose was they were well balanced on offense and defense and had great regular seasons. you don't see any scrub teams on that list that get lucky and somehow make their way to a super bowl win. Sorry but you haven't disproven my point that the VERY BEST teams of all time (ie-top 25) are the ones with all these qualities. even the 1985 bears which I think is the best of all time had a great offense to go along with that world class defense.

America's Game series? Who we're their top 20? And who the hell are they? Have a link to anything?

And I'm certainly not a huge expert, but I know enough about NFL history and have seen 30+ years of football games to realize that some teams, while not all that balanced, were outstanding football teams, and have been historically noted as such.

Scrub teams with Super Bowl wins...

I'm at a loss for words, because there isn't a bigger oxymoron known to man than that one.

Tell me about this America's Game thing
you can't be serious. this is one of the most widely acclaimed football series ever. even saints fans know what america's game is. here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Game:_The_Super_Bowl_Champions and to the guy above who says they are not experts who made it, you are right. but the actual rankings are done by NFL experts from around the country (not just steve sabol of nfl films). i think the rankings are very good and they were done in 2005 or 2006.Ok can you tell me what do you have against the Giants? Like ok I know the Bucs are too easy but how about annoying the Panthers or the Falcons fans?
It's because he is a Cowboys or Eagles fan, thats why. He is pissed off that his team could not close the deal this year and jumped onto the Saints bandwagon. </P>


If he was a Saints fan, he would know some history of the team, players etc. All he has is Saints 09 material. He has no credibility IMO. </P>

greenca190
03-21-2010, 11:48 PM
Yeah we all need to quit whining, this is getting ridiculous on both fans parts (whether he is actually a new orleans fan or not).

DB9
03-21-2010, 11:50 PM
So what is your definition of dominance again? The 2009 Saints?

They beat 2 good teams in the regular season(Pats, Jets), and that is giving credit to the Pats, who were nowhere near what they used to be. If you want to call a fairly easy ride to the SB dominance, then thats your business, but the Saints didn't exactly travel a rocky road to get where they went. Put them on the road and they were an entirely different team, and not for the better.The Bucs.. The BUCS! Squeaked 2 past the Skins and the Falcons as well. Lions, Bills, and the whole NFCS....easy wins, except for those pesky Bucs, eh? The Giants were an easy win as well.

Dominance? You dont have a clue as to what dominance is
dominance is going 13-3 and scoring 500+ points along the way and beating quality teams in the playoffs like the cardinals, vikings and colts. dominant enough to make us one of the top 25 super bowl teams of all time.

So points = dominance, but nothing else does? What about a team like the '00 Ravens? The '02 Bucs? The '00 Ravens were ALL defense, and the '02 Bucs were ALL defense, yet they won their Super Bowls with little to no offense whatsoever. So judging by your nonsensical jibberish, only points matter, and therefore, a team with a crushing defense can't be considered dominant.

Oh wait....they also have to destroy each and every opponent in the regular season, as well as the post season, in order to get your 'dominant' tag.

Lemme tell you something, kid: It is readily apparent that you are either very young, or have not been educated in the finer points of pro football. Your ideas of how it SHOULD be are HUGE contradictions with what the rest of us, who have been watching this game for 20, 30, 40+ years, see things as. Call up any nationally syndicated sports radio show and repeat what you've said here, and I guarantee that you'll be laughed off the air within 30 seconds.

Take a few years, get a bit older, pick a team, and stay with that team for life. It's obvious that you're a new Saints fan, because you never answer any direct questions about them regarding their history, and I personally believe that you're very much a bandwagon jumper. I know you're not posting from New Orleans, and I know this for a fact, but coming in here to banter with people, many of whom have been fans of the Giants for their entire lives(myself included) and sputtering out such ridiculous nonsense is only making you look bad.

Do yourself a favor and walk away
if you are such a huge expert, then why didn't the America's Game series...a ranking of the top 20 SB teams of all time not include the 00' Ravens and 02' Bucs? That list was decided by NFL experts from around the country. The common theme with the top 20 teams THEY chose was they were well balanced on offense and defense and had great regular seasons. you don't see any scrub teams on that list that get lucky and somehow make their way to a super bowl win. Sorry but you haven't disproven my point that the VERY BEST teams of all time (ie-top 25) are the ones with all these qualities. even the 1985 bears which I think is the best of all time had a great offense to go along with that world class defense.

America's Game series? Who we're their top 20? And who the hell are they? Have a link to anything?

And I'm certainly not a huge expert, but I know enough about NFL history and have seen 30+ years of football games to realize that some teams, while not all that balanced, were outstanding football teams, and have been historically noted as such.

Scrub teams with Super Bowl wins...

I'm at a loss for words, because there isn't a bigger oxymoron known to man than that one.

Tell me about this America's Game thing
you can't be serious. this is one of the most widely acclaimed football series ever. even saints fans know what america's game is. here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Game:_The_Super_Bowl_Champions and to the guy above who says they are not experts who made it, you are right. but the actual rankings are done by NFL experts from around the country (not just steve sabol of nfl films). i think the rankings are very good and they were done in 2005 or 2006.Ok can you tell me what do you have against the Giants? Like ok I know the Bucs are too easy but how about annoying the Panthers or the Falcons fans?
It's because he is a Cowboys or Eagles fan, thats why.* He is pissed off that his team could not close the deal this year and jumped onto the Saints bandwagon.* </P>


If he was a Saints fan, he would know some history of the team, players etc.* All he has is Saints 09 material.* He has no credibility IMO.* </P>

dude just let it go. you're theories are not even close.

greenca190
03-22-2010, 12:20 AM
So what is your definition of dominance again? The 2009 Saints?

They beat 2 good teams in the regular season(Pats, Jets), and that is giving credit to the Pats, who were nowhere near what they used to be. If you want to call a fairly easy ride to the SB dominance, then thats your business, but the Saints didn't exactly travel a rocky road to get where they went. Put them on the road and they were an entirely different team, and not for the better.The Bucs.. The BUCS! Squeaked 2 past the Skins and the Falcons as well. Lions, Bills, and the whole NFCS....easy wins, except for those pesky Bucs, eh? The Giants were an easy win as well.

Dominance? You dont have a clue as to what dominance is
dominance is going 13-3 and scoring 500+ points along the way and beating quality teams in the playoffs like the cardinals, vikings and colts. dominant enough to make us one of the top 25 super bowl teams of all time.

So points = dominance, but nothing else does? What about a team like the '00 Ravens? The '02 Bucs? The '00 Ravens were ALL defense, and the '02 Bucs were ALL defense, yet they won their Super Bowls with little to no offense whatsoever. So judging by your nonsensical jibberish, only points matter, and therefore, a team with a crushing defense can't be considered dominant.

Oh wait....they also have to destroy each and every opponent in the regular season, as well as the post season, in order to get your 'dominant' tag.

Lemme tell you something, kid: It is readily apparent that you are either very young, or have not been educated in the finer points of pro football. Your ideas of how it SHOULD be are HUGE contradictions with what the rest of us, who have been watching this game for 20, 30, 40+ years, see things as. Call up any nationally syndicated sports radio show and repeat what you've said here, and I guarantee that you'll be laughed off the air within 30 seconds.

Take a few years, get a bit older, pick a team, and stay with that team for life. It's obvious that you're a new Saints fan, because you never answer any direct questions about them regarding their history, and I personally believe that you're very much a bandwagon jumper. I know you're not posting from New Orleans, and I know this for a fact, but coming in here to banter with people, many of whom have been fans of the Giants for their entire lives(myself included) and sputtering out such ridiculous nonsense is only making you look bad.

Do yourself a favor and walk away
if you are such a huge expert, then why didn't the America's Game series...a ranking of the top 20 SB teams of all time not include the 00' Ravens and 02' Bucs? That list was decided by NFL experts from around the country. The common theme with the top 20 teams THEY chose was they were well balanced on offense and defense and had great regular seasons. you don't see any scrub teams on that list that get lucky and somehow make their way to a super bowl win. Sorry but you haven't disproven my point that the VERY BEST teams of all time (ie-top 25) are the ones with all these qualities. even the 1985 bears which I think is the best of all time had a great offense to go along with that world class defense.

America's Game series? Who we're their top 20? And who the hell are they? Have a link to anything?

And I'm certainly not a huge expert, but I know enough about NFL history and have seen 30+ years of football games to realize that some teams, while not all that balanced, were outstanding football teams, and have been historically noted as such.

Scrub teams with Super Bowl wins...

I'm at a loss for words, because there isn't a bigger oxymoron known to man than that one.

Tell me about this America's Game thing
you can't be serious. this is one of the most widely acclaimed football series ever. even saints fans know what america's game is. here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Game:_The_Super_Bowl_Champions and to the guy above who says they are not experts who made it, you are right. but the actual rankings are done by NFL experts from around the country (not just steve sabol of nfl films). i think the rankings are very good and they were done in 2005 or 2006.Ok can you tell me what do you have against the Giants? Like ok I know the Bucs are too easy but how about annoying the Panthers or the Falcons fans?
It's because he is a Cowboys or Eagles fan, thats why.* He is pissed off that his team could not close the deal this year and jumped onto the Saints bandwagon.* </P>


If he was a Saints fan, he would know some history of the team, players etc.* All he has is Saints 09 material.* He has no credibility IMO.* </P>

dude just let it go. you're theories are not even close.

wah wah wahhhh

shagrath1983
03-22-2010, 01:11 AM
This has to be DarkCrusader man.
never thought of that but as of now bigfoot and loch ness are also suspects, the investigation goes on...

Ntegrase96
03-22-2010, 01:23 AM
whoever it is, secret identity or not, DB9 has kept everyone fairly entertained for the last few days. Hell even Die-Hard has jumped in on this, and he's usually relatively quiet.

Die-Hard
03-22-2010, 06:47 AM
He's not entertaining me. I'm just trying to save the poor slob some embarassment, but I guess he likes being embarassed, so why not jump in?

Die-Hard
03-22-2010, 06:48 AM
So what is your definition of dominance again? The 2009 Saints?

They beat 2 good teams in the regular season(Pats, Jets), and that is giving credit to the Pats, who were nowhere near what they used to be. If you want to call a fairly easy ride to the SB dominance, then thats your business, but the Saints didn't exactly travel a rocky road to get where they went. Put them on the road and they were an entirely different team, and not for the better.The Bucs.. The BUCS! Squeaked 2 past the Skins and the Falcons as well. Lions, Bills, and the whole NFCS....easy wins, except for those pesky Bucs, eh? The Giants were an easy win as well.

Dominance? You dont have a clue as to what dominance is


dominance is going 13-3 and scoring 500+ points along the way and beating quality teams in the playoffs like the cardinals, vikings and colts. dominant enough to make us one of the top 25 super bowl teams of all time.

So points = dominance, but nothing else does? What about a team like the '00 Ravens? The '02 Bucs? The '00 Ravens were ALL defense, and the '02 Bucs were ALL defense, yet they won their Super Bowls with little to no offense whatsoever. So judging by your nonsensical jibberish, only points matter, and therefore, a team with a crushing defense can't be considered dominant.

Oh wait....they also have to destroy each and every opponent in the regular season, as well as the post season, in order to get your 'dominant' tag.

Lemme tell you something, kid: It is readily apparent that you are either very young, or have not been educated in the finer points of pro football. Your ideas of how it SHOULD be are HUGE contradictions with what the rest of us, who have been watching this game for 20, 30, 40+ years, see things as. Call up any nationally syndicated sports radio show and repeat what you've said here, and I guarantee that you'll be laughed off the air within 30 seconds.

Take a few years, get a bit older, pick a team, and stay with that team for life. It's obvious that you're a new Saints fan, because you never answer any direct questions about them regarding their history, and I personally believe that you're very much a bandwagon jumper. I know you're not posting from New Orleans, and I know this for a fact, but coming in here to banter with people, many of whom have been fans of the Giants for their entire lives(myself included) and sputtering out such ridiculous nonsense is only making you look bad.

Do yourself a favor and walk away


if you are such a huge expert, then why didn't the America's Game series...a ranking of the top 20 SB teams of all time not include the 00' Ravens and 02' Bucs? That list was decided by NFL experts from around the country. The common theme with the top 20 teams THEY chose was they were well balanced on offense and defense and had great regular seasons. you don't see any scrub teams on that list that get lucky and somehow make their way to a super bowl win. Sorry but you haven't disproven my point that the VERY BEST teams of all time (ie-top 25) are the ones with all these qualities. even the 1985 bears which I think is the best of all time had a great offense to go along with that world class defense.

America's Game series? Who we're their top 20? And who the hell are they? Have a link to anything?

And I'm certainly not a huge expert, but I know enough about NFL history and have seen 30+ years of football games to realize that some teams, while not all that balanced, were outstanding football teams, and have been historically noted as such.

Scrub teams with Super Bowl wins...

I'm at a loss for words, because there isn't a bigger oxymoron known to man than that one.

Tell me about this America's Game thing


you can't be serious. this is one of the most widely acclaimed football series ever. even saints fans know what america's game is. here is the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Game:_The_Super_Bowl_Champions

and to the guy above who says they are not experts who made it, you are right. but the actual rankings are done by NFL experts from around the country (not just steve sabol of nfl films). i think the rankings are very good and they were done in 2005 or 2006.

They were done in '05 or '06? That would explain why the '07 Giants didn't make their list perhaps?

Maybe?

tonyt830
03-22-2010, 07:34 AM
So what is your definition of dominance again? The 2009 Saints?

They beat 2 good teams in the regular season(Pats, Jets), and that is giving credit to the Pats, who were nowhere near what they used to be. If you want to call a fairly easy ride to the SB dominance, then thats your business, but the Saints didn't exactly travel a rocky road to get where they went. Put them on the road and they were an entirely different team, and not for the better.The Bucs.. The BUCS! Squeaked 2 past the Skins and the Falcons as well. Lions, Bills, and the whole NFCS....easy wins, except for those pesky Bucs, eh? The Giants were an easy win as well.

Dominance? You dont have a clue as to what dominance is
dominance is going 13-3 and scoring 500+ points along the way and beating quality teams in the playoffs like the cardinals, vikings and colts. dominant enough to make us one of the top 25 super bowl teams of all time.

So points = dominance, but nothing else does? What about a team like the '00 Ravens? The '02 Bucs? The '00 Ravens were ALL defense, and the '02 Bucs were ALL defense, yet they won their Super Bowls with little to no offense whatsoever. So judging by your nonsensical jibberish, only points matter, and therefore, a team with a crushing defense can't be considered dominant.

Oh wait....they also have to destroy each and every opponent in the regular season, as well as the post season, in order to get your 'dominant' tag.

Lemme tell you something, kid: It is readily apparent that you are either very young, or have not been educated in the finer points of pro football. Your ideas of how it SHOULD be are HUGE contradictions with what the rest of us, who have been watching this game for 20, 30, 40+ years, see things as. Call up any nationally syndicated sports radio show and repeat what you've said here, and I guarantee that you'll be laughed off the air within 30 seconds.

Take a few years, get a bit older, pick a team, and stay with that team for life. It's obvious that you're a new Saints fan, because you never answer any direct questions about them regarding their history, and I personally believe that you're very much a bandwagon jumper. I know you're not posting from New Orleans, and I know this for a fact, but coming in here to banter with people, many of whom have been fans of the Giants for their entire lives(myself included) and sputtering out such ridiculous nonsense is only making you look bad.

Do yourself a favor and walk away
if you are such a huge expert, then why didn't the America's Game series...a ranking of the top 20 SB teams of all time not include the 00' Ravens and 02' Bucs? That list was decided by NFL experts from around the country. The common theme with the top 20 teams THEY chose was they were well balanced on offense and defense and had great regular seasons. you don't see any scrub teams on that list that get lucky and somehow make their way to a super bowl win. Sorry but you haven't disproven my point that the VERY BEST teams of all time (ie-top 25) are the ones with all these qualities. even the 1985 bears which I think is the best of all time had a great offense to go along with that world class defense.

America's Game series? Who we're their top 20? And who the hell are they? Have a link to anything?

And I'm certainly not a huge expert, but I know enough about NFL history and have seen 30+ years of football games to realize that some teams, while not all that balanced, were outstanding football teams, and have been historically noted as such.

Scrub teams with Super Bowl wins...

I'm at a loss for words, because there isn't a bigger oxymoron known to man than that one.

Tell me about this America's Game thing
you can't be serious. this is one of the most widely acclaimed football series ever. even saints fans know what america's game is. here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Game:_The_Super_Bowl_Champions and to the guy above who says they are not experts who made it, you are right. but the actual rankings are done by NFL experts from around the country (not just steve sabol of nfl films). i think the rankings are very good and they were done in 2005 or 2006.Ok can you tell me what do you have against the Giants? Like ok I know the Bucs are too easy but how about annoying the Panthers or the Falcons fans?
It's because he is a Cowboys or Eagles fan, thats why. He is pissed off that his team could not close the deal this year and jumped onto the Saints bandwagon. </P>


If he was a Saints fan, he would know some history of the team, players etc. All he has is Saints 09 material. He has no credibility IMO. </P>


dude just let it go. you're theories are not even close.OK Dude!!! LOL!!!</P>


</P>


Sooner or later, you will slip up and show your true colors! The Mods have you pegged. Die Hard is being a nice guy, but he has been known to lay the smackdown on posters like you.</P>

SweetZombieJesus
03-22-2010, 08:33 AM
America's Game series? Who we're their top 20? And who the hell are they? Have a link to anything?

And I'm certainly not a huge expert, but I know enough about NFL history and have seen 30+ years of football games to realize that some teams, while not all that balanced, were outstanding football teams, and have been historically noted as such.

Scrub teams with Super Bowl wins...

I'm at a loss for words, because there isn't a bigger oxymoron known to man than that one.

Tell me about this America's Game thing


It's an NFL Network thing and they did an excellent series where they go back to the Super Bowl winning teams and get behind-the-scenes stories from three key people in the team, and follow their personal story within the context of the championship season. The 86 Giants version features Parcells, Simms, and Taylor. The 90 version features Hoss, OJ, and Banks. The 07 has Cough, Stray, and Eli.

Excellent series, especially because most of them are decades later. In the 86 episode you see the love Parcells still has for his old players. In 90 I learned things about Hoss and OJ I never knew (Hoss was ready to leave the NFL mid season, frustrated and had enough; OJ was emasculated and knew his time was over when they drafted Rodney Hampton that year but had one last dream left that kept him holding on).

http://nfl.imageg.net/graphics/product_images/p4081244reg.jpg

86 and 90 DVD here (http://www.nflshop.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2974253&amp;cp=2423043.2598737&amp;vie w=all&amp;page_bucket=0&amp;PAGES_PER_BUCKET=10&amp;num_bucket s=1&amp;pageType=family&amp;pageType=family&amp;pageNum=1&amp;page Display=actfam&amp;totalProductsCount=32&amp;hasPagination =false&amp;int_prevBucket=-1&amp;PRODUCTS_PER_PAGE=9&amp;showSizeSearch=false&amp;int_nex tBucket=0&amp;pageCount=4&amp;parentPage=family)

First, the top 20 was completed the year before Super Bowl XLII so it isn't on the list. I wonder where it would place, pretty high I would imagine. The 1986 Giants made the list at #13.

It was basically a viewer contest to pick the top 20, to get some mileage out of the material they already produced, because they do every Super Bowl winner. Recently since they ran out of winners they did a series called "Missing Rings" for teams that probably should have won (such as the 90 Bills and 98 Vikings).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Game:_The_Super_Bowl_Champions#Top_twe nty

72 Dolphins 85 Bears (whoops, what was that about "domination" and defense?) 78 Steelers 89 49ers 92 Cowboys 66 Packers 75 Steelers 84 49ers 04 Patriots 76 Raiders 77 Cowboys 98 Broncos 86 Giants 91 Redskins 71 Cowboys 96 Packers 94 49ers 69 Chiefs 99 Rams 83 Raiders

SweetZombieJesus
03-22-2010, 09:08 AM
3. 2009 Saints - best super bowl winning offense

2007 Giants - Super Bowl XLII - total yards from scrimmage -- 338
2009 Saints - Super Bowl XLIV - total yards from scrimmage -- 332

<font color="#ff0000">I guess the "best super bowl winning offense" didn't save their best for last.</font>

DB9
03-22-2010, 09:26 AM
He's not entertaining me. I'm just trying to save the poor slob some embarassment, but I guess he likes being embarassed, so why not jump in?


i just busted your theories, so why keep calling me names? An entire panel of NFL experts ranked those teams and basically use the same criteria as I do.

And the 07' giants were not ranked because the rankings were done earlier but they would not be on the list simply because they were a 10-6 wild card team. The expert panel saved the top 20 for the creme de la creme. if the 1990 giants were not considered worthy enough to make that list, then I highly doubt a worse team like the 2007 giants would make it.

Redeyejedi
03-22-2010, 09:33 AM
He's not entertaining me. I'm just trying to save the poor slob some embarassment, but I guess he likes being embarassed, so why not jump in?
i just busted your theories, so why keep calling me names? An entire panel of NFL experts ranked those teams and basically use the same criteria as I do. And the 07' giants were not ranked because the rankings were done earlier but they would not be on the list simply because they were a 10-6 wild card team. The expert panel saved the top 20 for the creme de la creme.The mods havent figured out who you are yet.I find it very suspicious there is a Saints fan troll on this board.I understand Cowboy and Eagle trolls but the Saints doesnt make much sense.Why arent U on the Falcons,Panthers or Bucs boards there your rivals.They also rival U in losing tradition the division is perfect for your team

DB9
03-22-2010, 09:35 AM
3. 2009 Saints - best super bowl winning offense

2007 Giants - Super Bowl XLII - total yards from scrimmage -- 338
2009 Saints - Super Bowl XLIV - total yards from scrimmage -- 332

<font color="#ff0000">I guess the "best super bowl winning offense" didn't save their best for last.</font>


man you don't read my posts do you? you just want to read one or two lines and then jump on me. My list was ranked based on regular season and post season accomplishment. THe reason I put the saints in the top 3 was because they scored the most points during the regular season of every team that won the super bowl over the past 10 years.

and as far as the 1985 bears is concerned, they were a top 10 offense that year (which i acknowledged) and had the best defense in history. The reason the bears are ranked so high is not only because of their defense but because of their 15-1 record and pretty good offense. they were well balanced.

Hostetler
03-22-2010, 10:43 AM
ok DB9 - let's put this in perspective shall we - The Saints have last year to glorify. They won thier first champoinship ever. Congratulations. You then get this wild hair up your butt to come to a MB whose team has won 3 superbowls, one of those superbowls with a back-up QB and runningback, in a division that owns nearly 25% of all superbowls won, to talk smack. And , most of the stuff you are talking about does not hold any kind of water.


Please - go back to your MB, bask in the glory of the saints recent achievement and stop looking like an idiot here.

Ntegrase96
03-22-2010, 02:35 PM
ok DB9 - let's put this in perspective shall we - The Saints have last year to glorify. They won thier first champoinship ever. Congratulations. You then get this wild hair up your butt to come to a MB whose team has won 3 superbowls, one of those superbowls with a back-up QB and runningback, in a division that owns <u>EXACTLY </u>25% of all superbowls won, to talk smack. And , most of the stuff you are talking about does not hold any kind of water.


Please - go back to your MB, bask in the glory of the saints recent achievement and stop looking like an idiot here.

fixed it for ya. ha, I just did the math because I never really thought about it

SweetZombieJesus
03-22-2010, 03:43 PM
ok DB9 - let's put this in perspective shall we - The Saints have last year to glorify. They won thier first champoinship ever. Congratulations. You then get this wild hair up your butt to come to a MB whose team has won 3 superbowls, one of those superbowls with a back-up QB and runningback, in a division that owns <u>EXACTLY </u>25% of all superbowls won, to talk smack. And , most of the stuff you are talking about does not hold any kind of water.


Please - go back to your MB, bask in the glory of the saints recent achievement and stop looking like an idiot here.

fixed it for ya. ha, I just did the math because I never really thought about it


And that division has appeared in 19 Super Bowls -- 43%.

Jack Robinson
03-22-2010, 06:59 PM
ok DB9 - let's put this in perspective shall we - The Saints have last year to glorify. They won thier first champoinship ever. Congratulations. You then get this wild hair up your butt to come to a MB whose team has won 3 superbowls, one of those superbowls with a back-up QB and runningback, in a division that owns nearly 25% of all superbowls won, to talk smack. And , most of the stuff you are talking about does not hold any kind of water. Please - go back to your MB, bask in the glory of the saints recent achievement and stop looking like an idiot here.</P>


It's kind of like a former gangbanger who gets an NFL contract, and goes from having no money to signinga five million dollar contract. What's the first thing he does? Goes overboard and makes a down payment on a $15M beachhome and 3 aston martins. Then on weekends he takes a $100K bag of 1s into a strip club to "make it rain."</P>


Wait, did I just describe pak man jones or saints fans?</P>


</P>

rbcarpenter
03-22-2010, 07:08 PM
<font size="6">both![:P]</font>

Sundown
03-22-2010, 09:36 PM
This fool is still going at it!!!? LMFAO!!!!

MikeSherrard
03-22-2010, 10:49 PM
I REALLY HOPE WE MAKE THE BOTTOM OF THIS LIST AGAIN SOON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

MikeSherrard
03-22-2010, 10:50 PM
Thats like being number 498 on the forbes 500!!!!!!! pretty f'n good!

shagrath1983
03-22-2010, 11:06 PM
America's Game series? Who we're their top 20? And who the hell are they? Have a link to anything?

And I'm certainly not a huge expert, but I know enough about NFL history and have seen 30+ years of football games to realize that some teams, while not all that balanced, were outstanding football teams, and have been historically noted as such.

Scrub teams with Super Bowl wins...

I'm at a loss for words, because there isn't a bigger oxymoron known to man than that one.

Tell me about this America's Game thing


It's an NFL Network thing and they did an excellent series where they go back to the Super Bowl winning teams and get behind-the-scenes stories from three key people in the team, and follow their personal story within the context of the championship season. The 86 Giants version features Parcells, Simms, and Taylor. The 90 version features Hoss, OJ, and Banks. The 07 has Cough, Stray, and Eli.

Excellent series, especially because most of them are decades later. In the 86 episode you see the love Parcells still has for his old players. In 90 I learned things about Hoss and OJ I never knew (Hoss was ready to leave the NFL mid season, frustrated and had enough; OJ was emasculated and knew his time was over when they drafted Rodney Hampton that year but had one last dream left that kept him holding on).

http://nfl.imageg.net/graphics/product_images/p4081244reg.jpg

86 and 90 DVD here (http://www.nflshop.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2974253&amp;cp=2423043.2598737&amp;vie w=all&amp;page_bucket=0&amp;PAGES_PER_BUCKET=10&amp;num_bucket s=1&amp;pageType=family&amp;pageType=family&amp;pageNum=1&amp;page Display=actfam&amp;totalProductsCount=32&amp;hasPagination =false&amp;int_prevBucket=-1&amp;PRODUCTS_PER_PAGE=9&amp;showSizeSearch=false&amp;int_nex tBucket=0&amp;pageCount=4&amp;parentPage=family)

First, the top 20 was completed the year before Super Bowl XLII so it isn't on the list. I wonder where it would place, pretty high I would imagine. The 1986 Giants made the list at #13.

It was basically a viewer contest to pick the top 20, to get some mileage out of the material they already produced, because they do every Super Bowl winner. Recently since they ran out of winners they did a series called "Missing Rings" for teams that probably should have won (such as the 90 Bills and 98 Vikings).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Game:_The_Super_Bowl_Champions#Top_twe nty

72 Dolphins 85 Bears (whoops, what was that about "domination" and defense?) 78 Steelers 89 49ers <font color="#000080">92 Cowboys</font> 66 Packers 75 Steelers 84 49ers 04 Patriots 76 Raiders <font color="#000080">77 Cowboys</font> 98 Broncos 86 Giants 91 Redskins <font color="#000080">71</font><font color="#000080"> Cowboys</font> 96 Packers 94 49ers 69 Chiefs 99 Rams 83 Raiders

thats nice I like that

Jack Robinson
03-23-2010, 12:56 AM
I REALLY HOPE WE MAKE THE BOTTOM OF THIS LIST AGAIN SOON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO


</P>


</P>


Seriously. I'll take multiple championships and not making anybody's list over the 85 Bears any day. Bears fans have been talking about 85 for so long I think they probably would too.</P>


I've lived long enough to see the expected championship and the surprise champtionship. Not only is the surprise so much sweeter, it just gets better with age.</P>


</P>


</P>

shagrath1983
03-23-2010, 03:17 AM
I REALLY HOPE WE MAKE THE BOTTOM OF THIS LIST AGAIN SOON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO


</p>


</p>


Seriously. I'll take multiple championships and not making anybody's list over the 85 Bears any day. Bears fans have been talking about 85 for so long I think they probably would too.</p>


I've lived long enough to see the expected championship and the surprise champtionship. Not only is the surprise so much sweeter, it just gets better with age.</p>


</p>


</p>I know you have had ur sig for awhile now but thanks for putting me in the boob crew it means alot.......

Die-Hard
03-23-2010, 06:26 AM
No more DB9

His sig was the last stupid straw that broke the stupid camel's back.