The Duke
New Member
- Messages
- 245
- Reaction score
- 0
I saw the NFL Network's preview for thier effort to pick the greatest Super Bowl teams.
They seem to have made an effort to get a large sampling of writers, ex-players and coaches.
Yet, I almost puked when I saw Bryant Gumbel.
One person (maybe Gumbel) said he voted for how the team made him feel.
Another - the historical significance the team made (thus Jets even though he knows they wouldn't beat some others was very high on the list.)
One guy was pointing to how many hall of famers some teams had...gee I wonder if the Cowboys would jump up higher on the list with nothing different other than the Cowboy bias for HOF voting.
I laughed so hard when they briefly covered the "perfect season" of the Miami Dolphins and they mentioned the Dolphins only played 2 teams with winning records that regular season and they were only 8-6 teams.
Both Cowboy winning Super Bowl teams of the 70s made the top 20 but only one 90s ('93) made the list. '92 team left off? Rick Gosselin was briefly arguing the the '93 Cowboys to be the best ever with the Triplets and #1 ranked defense.
These debates are really pointless, but still fun. Obviously, I think feel good and trying to be fair and share the credit around to different teams gets in the way.
They just should have tried to define a little bit of what standard to go on.
1. Historical impact? I don't care if Namath was the first to give the AFC repectability. They do not belong anywhere near the top 20.
2. I guess people will vote based on how they "feel" but my gosh, if we wanted a feeling survey we would have polled a bunch of women. Don't admit that's how you chose the teams. Everyone should have tried their best to be objective.
3. # of HOF. Please. Real objective there.
4. How about Strength of schedule and competition faced. For example, I know I'm bias but the 90s Cowboys are truly great because they consitently beat the 49ers with Young and Rice who without the Cowboys might have won 3-4 Super Bowls in the early 90s themselves. (They made the list too) To be fair, Steelers of 70s are impressive because they beat Staubach and Cowboys in 2 Super Bowls. Weaker competition taints the modern cap era teams even if the stats look good.
Many more possibilities.
I suggest...(drumroll please)
1. Try to set some standard. Maybe 3 lists of greatest based on different criteria.
2. Next, poll a large sampling of ex-players and coaches of each decade to determine the decade or era's top teams in order. Then in the final vote you won't have one person choosing the Dolphins over the Cowboys in the 70s if the poll of that era was clear the Cowboys were considered better by their peers.
Then have the feel good final vote. It's nearly impossible anyway to compare different eras but at least get a better feel for the best of the eras. Without it, the final vote is all over the place with one team in top 5 and another person not even having the team in the top 20, which is what they pointed out last night. That's nuts.
3. No writers!!! I don't care if they have a better perspective on history. I don't care what a person's opinion is who was a 3rd string "I never played" high school player. I only care about the respect the ex-players and coaches have for each others significance. The writers are the ones that have screwed up the HOF. They ruin all these voting situations. (This is also why I get upset and puke when Jennifer Floyd Engel "Little Ball of Hate" writes and even has a radio show. :ralph:
One redeeming quality to the NFL Network's attempt is they didn't turn this into an internet fan vote.
With all that being said, I will have my popcorn ready because I'm still a fan that loves history comparisons.
What do you think?
They seem to have made an effort to get a large sampling of writers, ex-players and coaches.
Yet, I almost puked when I saw Bryant Gumbel.
One person (maybe Gumbel) said he voted for how the team made him feel.
Another - the historical significance the team made (thus Jets even though he knows they wouldn't beat some others was very high on the list.)
One guy was pointing to how many hall of famers some teams had...gee I wonder if the Cowboys would jump up higher on the list with nothing different other than the Cowboy bias for HOF voting.
I laughed so hard when they briefly covered the "perfect season" of the Miami Dolphins and they mentioned the Dolphins only played 2 teams with winning records that regular season and they were only 8-6 teams.
Both Cowboy winning Super Bowl teams of the 70s made the top 20 but only one 90s ('93) made the list. '92 team left off? Rick Gosselin was briefly arguing the the '93 Cowboys to be the best ever with the Triplets and #1 ranked defense.
These debates are really pointless, but still fun. Obviously, I think feel good and trying to be fair and share the credit around to different teams gets in the way.
They just should have tried to define a little bit of what standard to go on.
1. Historical impact? I don't care if Namath was the first to give the AFC repectability. They do not belong anywhere near the top 20.
2. I guess people will vote based on how they "feel" but my gosh, if we wanted a feeling survey we would have polled a bunch of women. Don't admit that's how you chose the teams. Everyone should have tried their best to be objective.
3. # of HOF. Please. Real objective there.
4. How about Strength of schedule and competition faced. For example, I know I'm bias but the 90s Cowboys are truly great because they consitently beat the 49ers with Young and Rice who without the Cowboys might have won 3-4 Super Bowls in the early 90s themselves. (They made the list too) To be fair, Steelers of 70s are impressive because they beat Staubach and Cowboys in 2 Super Bowls. Weaker competition taints the modern cap era teams even if the stats look good.
Many more possibilities.
I suggest...(drumroll please)
1. Try to set some standard. Maybe 3 lists of greatest based on different criteria.
2. Next, poll a large sampling of ex-players and coaches of each decade to determine the decade or era's top teams in order. Then in the final vote you won't have one person choosing the Dolphins over the Cowboys in the 70s if the poll of that era was clear the Cowboys were considered better by their peers.
Then have the feel good final vote. It's nearly impossible anyway to compare different eras but at least get a better feel for the best of the eras. Without it, the final vote is all over the place with one team in top 5 and another person not even having the team in the top 20, which is what they pointed out last night. That's nuts.
3. No writers!!! I don't care if they have a better perspective on history. I don't care what a person's opinion is who was a 3rd string "I never played" high school player. I only care about the respect the ex-players and coaches have for each others significance. The writers are the ones that have screwed up the HOF. They ruin all these voting situations. (This is also why I get upset and puke when Jennifer Floyd Engel "Little Ball of Hate" writes and even has a radio show. :ralph:
One redeeming quality to the NFL Network's attempt is they didn't turn this into an internet fan vote.
With all that being said, I will have my popcorn ready because I'm still a fan that loves history comparisons.
What do you think?