What was the best team ever?

[Psycho Penguin 0]

I have no problem whatsoever with the '07 Pats being thrown into the mix. They didn't just win 16 regular season games, they dominated them: 35-40 points a game, and more than 50 on two occasions. They might be remembered more for the blemish of losing the Super Bowl, but no team in the big four ever started a season with eighteen straight wins.

 

Seriously. It's okay for the Bears to go 18-1 but not the Patriots to go 18-1 just because of when they miraculously lost? And I hate the Patriots and would put the 85 Bears over them any time, but I don't see a huge difference. The Bears beat a weak sauce in the SB, the Pats were playing a hot team they almost lost to at the end of the season.

 

How about the UCLA basketball team that won a ton of games in a row before losing to ND? 56, I think. I guess it took place over two seasons, so maybe the 1st season's team?

[HarleyQuinn 0]

Just looking at Al's post, here's a list of the most dominant "4 year" runs in the NHL. I settled on 4 because it's rare for an NHL team to dominate for even 5 years straight.

 

Boston Bruins (1970-1973): Went 214-66-32 (68.9%) and won the SC in 1971 while losing in 1973. These teams featured Phil Esposito, Bobby Orr, and Gerry Cheevers. The league consistently featured 3-4 teams with 46+ wins every season with only 14 teams playing.

 

Montreal Canadiens (1975-1978): Went 229-55-45 (69.6%) and won the SC all 4 seasons (That's back-back-back-back). Featured Bowman as coach with Guy Lafluer at the top of his game. In 1975 they shut out a 51 win Philly team. In 1976 they shut out a 49 win Bruins team. In 1977 they beat a 51 Bruins team 4-2. In 1978 they beat a 40 win Rangers team 4-1. So in 4 years, they went 16-3 in the Stanley Cup Finals against really good opponents outside of 1978. Montreal also did this when the NHL expanded up to 18 teams, meaning more competition and often with 5-6 teams with 40+ wins a year.

 

Detroit Red Wings (2005-2007): Only 3 years but have gone 162-56 (74.3%) including a Stanley Cup win last year and look poised to win another 50 games and make a run at the Stanley Cup again this year. Led by guys like Pavel Datsyuk, Henrik Zetterberg, and Lidstrom. They had Hasek in goal for two of those seasons with the only consistent being Chris Osgood backing up. They're playing in a league with 30 teams where in the past few seasons, the fewest wins for a team has been 22, 21, and 31. The key? Two years featured at least 5 teams winning 50 games.

 

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

I'd make the case for the 95-98 Wings over the current crop. Four straight years of no worse than the conference finals, two Cups, and the single-season record for wins. The aformentioned loss in the Western final (the only one of the four in which they weren't in the Cup final) spawned one of hockey's best rivalries. One of my favourite sport quotes ever is "I can't believe I shook that friggin guy's hand."

[Slayer 0]

It's still kind of weird to see Slayer posts that are.....actual.

Substantial, perhaps?

 

Come on, I didn't build my entire rep on one-liners alone!

 

 

 

 

 

 

...just most of it

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

Amazing. A team that doesn't win the title still gets talked up as the best team ever. The difference between the 2007 Patriots and the 1985 Bears is... Bears are in the annals of history as actually winning the title. It's quite mindboggling to put a team in as the best of all time when another team is the champion of their season. Get over them running up the score on Washington Redskins and Miami Dolphins and recognize that truth.

 

edit: Sorry, but that's the major hang up I have with the Patriots. It's like the BCS. It does matter when you lose. Week 13? Ok. Super Bowl? No. I'm starting to think maybe I should give the 72 Dolphins more credit. Undefeated and won the Super Bowl.

[Psycho Penguin 0]

How can a team be the greatest of all time if they lost a game, period. That will eliminate a lot of teams right off the bat!

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

So then Czech would be correct in the Dolphins assessment then. I'll accept that premise. Just... not the Patriots. Though, had the Patriots lost one game in the season, and gone on to win the Super Bowl OR gone 19-0, then I'd have definitely put them there as the undisputed #1.

[Cartman 0]

Well since some have mentioned long term success let us never forget the 1957-69 Celtics who won 11 titles in 13 years. That kinda dominance probably will never happen in any sport again.

 

As for the 2007 Patriots...The fact they played against pretty much every other "Winning" team and had one of the toughest schedules outside the division helps their argument.

[Guest Czecherbear]

Yeah but wasn't some of that kinda before the NBA really established itself as a top-flight professional league? One of the teams played in a high school gym in Fort Wayne.

[Guest Vitamin X]

And Will Ferrell was on that team!

 

I'm not going to buy in the 72 Dolphins argument. For one thing, there were 14 games in the regular season at the time, they played in what was known at the time to be the lesser conference, and played a really weak Redskins team in the Super Bowl. The fact they were able to defend that championship successfully the following year is, in my opinion, much more impressive since they had to go through the Steel Curtain, the Doomsday Defense, Madden's Raiders, and the Purple People Eaters at the end of it all. And this was a team that wasn't particularly flashy on either side of the ball, either.

 

HOMER ALERT: The 1996 Packers were a hell of a great team also. In fact, over on Cold Hard Football Facts, there's an article listed on the 24 most dominant teams of the Super Bowl Era, and they're squeezed right in there with the 85 Bears, 84 Niners, and those pesky 72 Dolphins.

 

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Artic...7_Patriots.html

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

I think the 2008 OU football team might be the best ever. They should win the Big XII because you have to throw out head to head unless you're bias.

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

As for the 2007 Patriots...The fact they played against pretty much every other "Winning" team and had one of the toughest schedules outside the division helps their argument.

 

You... lost... the Super Bowl. End of discussion. Bye!

[Psycho Penguin 0]

I think the 2008 OU football team might be the best ever. They should win the Big XII because you have to throw out head to head unless you're bias.

 

I would rank them 2nd in my BCS of best teams ever for sure.

 

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

Behind 2008 Texas?

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

I'm not going to buy in the 72 Dolphins argument. For one thing, there were 14 games in the regular season at the time, they played in what was known at the time to be the lesser conference, and played a really weak Redskins team in the Super Bowl.

Griese got hurt in game 5, and didn't return until the AFC Championship game, meaning a 38-year old backup QB played the majority of the season, which should be a point in their favor.

[Cartman 0]

As for the 2007 Patriots...The fact they played against pretty much every other "Winning" team and had one of the toughest schedules outside the division helps their argument.

 

You... lost... the Super Bowl. End of discussion. Bye!

 

I didn't lose anything.

[naiwf 0]

Just looking at Al's post, here's a list of the most dominant "4 year" runs in the NHL. I settled on 4 because it's rare for an NHL team to dominate for even 5 years straight.

 

Boston Bruins (1970-1973): Went 214-66-32 (68.9%) and won the SC in 1971 while losing in 1973. These teams featured Phil Esposito, Bobby Orr, and Gerry Cheevers. The league consistently featured 3-4 teams with 46+ wins every season with only 14 teams playing.

 

Montreal Canadiens (1975-1978): Went 229-55-45 (69.6%) and won the SC all 4 seasons (That's back-back-back-back). Featured Bowman as coach with Guy Lafluer at the top of his game. In 1975 they shut out a 51 win Philly team. In 1976 they shut out a 49 win Bruins team. In 1977 they beat a 51 Bruins team 4-2. In 1978 they beat a 40 win Rangers team 4-1. So in 4 years, they went 16-3 in the Stanley Cup Finals against really good opponents outside of 1978. Montreal also did this when the NHL expanded up to 18 teams, meaning more competition and often with 5-6 teams with 40+ wins a year.

 

Detroit Red Wings (2005-2007): Only 3 years but have gone 162-56 (74.3%) including a Stanley Cup win last year and look poised to win another 50 games and make a run at the Stanley Cup again this year. Led by guys like Pavel Datsyuk, Henrik Zetterberg, and Lidstrom. They had Hasek in goal for two of those seasons with the only consistent being Chris Osgood backing up. They're playing in a league with 30 teams where in the past few seasons, the fewest wins for a team has been 22, 21, and 31. The key? Two years featured at least 5 teams winning 50 games.

 

Where are the Islanders that won 4 straight cups in this discussion?

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

I think the idea that a team is automatically disqualified by not winning their championship is absurd. It's like claiming Leon Spinks was a better boxer than Muhammad Ali. A non-championship does not necessarily make team mediocre, nor does a perfect season necessarily make a team the greatest. Could the '72 Dolphins beat the '85 Bears? Better yet, would they beat them every single game? Of course not. If you took the 32 greatest NFL teams and put them in one league, no team would go undefeated. In fact, most of the league would finish 9-7 and 8-8 due to the high caliber of competition.

 

The last sentence is the 800 lb. gorilla in the room. The better the quality of a sporting league, the harder it is to dominate. If a team can win 11 of 13 championships like the Celtics, it probably says more about the NBA than anything else.

[Guest Vitamin X]

The NFC won something like 13 straight over the AFC from the 80's until the Packers' downfall to the Broncos (sorry guys!) in SB XXXII. I don't think that said anything about the quality of the competition in the AFC, but there were much more historically great teams in the NFC up until that point. Funny enough, the league changed completely over the next decade- the AFC has since taken 8 of the next 11 Super Bowls, with the 99 Rams, 02 Bucs, and last year's Giants being the NFC winners. Having the Broncos go back to back and New England winning 3 of 4 probably helped quite a bit, too.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Yeah but wasn't some of that kinda before the NBA really established itself as a top-flight professional league? One of the teams played in a high school gym in Fort Wayne.

 

ZOLLNER PISTONS FTW!

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

MLB Talk

 

I see six teams with a legitimate argument as the best ever.

 

1906 Chicago Cubs: Though they lost the World Series, they went on to win the next two. Any way you slice up win/loss records (one year, two, three, five, etc.), they have the highest on record. No team was ever more adept at turning balls in play into outs.

 

1927 New York Yankees: 110 wins and a World Series sweep. I personally think the team is overrated, and I'll touch on that later on.

 

1939 New York Yankees. 106-45, and a World Series sweep. This team won four consecutive World Series, and every single year they led the league in both runs scored and allowed. The caveat with this club is that the Great Depression severely depressed competition. An eight team league, and both the Browns and Athletics were blatantly uncompetitive.

 

1970 Baltimore Orioles: 109 and 108 wins in back-to-back seasons. That two year stretch is matched only by the Cubs, and the O's don't face the same quality of competition argument.

 

1975 Cincinnati Reds: The best lineup in history, practically an All-Star at every position.

 

1998 New York Yankees: 114 wins and then an 11-2 run in the postseason. Their '99 postseason run was even better, and they won four World Series in five years. Probably the most complete team of the bunch, with a deep bench and bullpen.

 

In regards to the '27 Yankees, it strikes me that they kept the team largely intact and two years later they could not crack 90 wins. The team won a lot of games thanks to flukeish performances by their pitching staff. They had a 30 year old rookie relief ace who never produced another season like that in his life. If you could somehow put the team together again, I'm not sure they could duplicate that performance.

 

My personal pick is the 1970 Orioles. A deep team with all the elements. They had a great offense led by Hall of Famer Frank Robinson. Their defense was also great, headed by another Hall of Famer in Brooks Robinson. Their pitching staff featured three 20 game winners. Their bullpen was solid. Their bench was good, and they had a Hall of Fame manager to put it all together. For two years, they were the most dominant team ever.

[Psycho Penguin 0]

I'll go with 1970 Orioles barely over 1998 Yankees. I saw more of the 98 Yankees, obviously, but the 70 Orioles looked absolutely dominating from what I could tell.

 

75 Big Red Machine placing third. Wow, I missed a lot of great teams Now, it's all parity, and a team that wins some ridiculous number of games (119, I think?) won't even make the world series.

[Red Baron 0]

You could put in the 1956-1960 era Montreal Canadiens or even one of the 1940's teams from either Toronto or Detroit.

 

If anything don't leave off the greatness of the 1991-92 Pittsburgh Penguins. They were if not the best team in hockey for three straight years (except against the Islanders in '93)

[CanadianChris 0]

If anything don't leave off the greatness of the 1991-92 Pittsburgh Penguins. They were if not the best team in hockey for three straight years (except against the Islanders in '93)

I'm having a tough time with that. They won a very weak Patrick Division in 1991 with only 88 points, then finished third in the division in 1992 on 87 points and had to come back from 3-1 down against Washington before finally waking up. Only in 1993 did they look like a really dominant team...until running into the mighty Islanders.

[bob_barron 0]

I think the idea that a team is automatically disqualified by not winning their championship is absurd.

 

No it's not. If you can't win the big one, then you're not one of the best teams ever. It's absurd to think otherwise.

 

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

I think the idea that a team is automatically disqualified by not winning their championship is absurd.

 

No it's not. If you can't win the big one, then you're not one of the best teams ever. It's absurd to think otherwise.

 

This. You can't be one of the best teams ever if you weren't even the best team of THAT season. Otherwise it suggests that the champion of that season has to be considered for one of the best ever too, and that is obviously not always the case.

[Psycho Penguin 0]

Do you seriously think the 2007 Giants are a better team than the 2007 Patriots? They went 1-1 against each other, and one went 18-1 and the other.. didn't.

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

Do you seriously think the 2007 Giants are a better team than the 2007 Patriots? They went 1-1 against each other, and one went 18-1 and the other.. didn't.

 

No and that's my point why the Patriots cannot be. They lost when it count to the Giants. Note I say "WHEN IT COUNT". That being the championship game. New York can claim to be the best team of 2007 because they have the rings, New England does not. They can only point to that 18 game streak, which ultimately meant nothing, since... New York ended up winning the championship, not New England.

 

It's the same reason the 1998 Vikings and the 200(4?5?) Steelers who went 15-1 in the season are forgotten, because they didn't win when they had to. Well the Vikings were remembered simply for having that dominant offense, something the 2007 Patriots can claim, and nothing more.

[bob_barron 0]

Do you seriously think the 2007 Giants are a better team than the 2007 Patriots? They went 1-1 against each other, and one went 18-1 and the other.. didn't.

 

No, probably not.

 

But I don't believe that the Patriots can be considered one of the best teams ever. They didn't even win the Super Bowl! If anything, the Pats will be remembered for cheating and for choking on the biggest stage.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Let's say it's 1906. Are the Chicago Cubs of that year at that point not the greatest team of all time?