Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by Pats_2007, Feb 12, 2008.
I hate to say it but i'll go with the 49ers. Better Defense and more balanced Offense.
I was too young to remember the 1989 49ers team, but I'd have to go with them seeing as they won the big one...
The reality is the comparisons to any of the great teams in nfl history are no longer valid. Whether thats fair or not doesnt really matter, ultimately you're only remembered as a winner or a loser. I'm a Vikings fan, and to this day I believe the '98 Vikings were an alltime great team and the best team in the NFL that year. They just happened to pick the wrong time to slip, much like these patriots. But 10 years later, and its only Viking fans who see that team that way...other fans just see them as a 15-1 team that lost the big game, another good team with a good record and thats it.
2007 Pats... those niners look soft in comparison.
The 2007 Patriots are the 43rd best team in the Super Bowl era.
1989 49ers were better, because Josh McDaniels was the 2007 Pats Offensive Coordinator.
1989 49ers are the greatest team ever and it's not even close. Yes, I'm a 49ers fan and am biased...But I have games from that era and I really haven't comes seen any other team that compares.
We rotated our starting O-Line out in the 2nd and 4th QTR's of REGULAR SEASON GAMES that year. And we had a mad rotation on our front 7 D as well.
Only starter on the 2007 Pats that even compares any one of the starters on the 1989 49ers is Randy Moss and maybe Logan Mankins. And yes, I would have said this whether the Pats had won the SB and gone 19-0 or not.
I'm the user that started this thread on 49ers.com BTW:
That' great from a team that hasn't won a SB in 13 years and in the last 5 years are the joke of the NFC.
Wow... that MB is DEAD. It's like a ghost town over there.
Yet the "Laugh at New England" thread is 54 pages there.
A better question for Pats fans... who would you rather have played: The 1990 Giants or the 2007 Giants.
I would add the 1985 Bears to the mix. In the last half of the season, in the playoffs, and in the SB, both those teams were stronger than the 2007 patriots.
When comparing dynasties, I think the Belichick patriots are the best, although again, a strong case can be made for the 49ers.
The 2007 Patriots are not a great team. They choked. Great teams do not choke. The 2007 Patriots = 2001 Rams. If the 2007 Colts had lost the SB and blown an undefeated no one here would consider them a great team.
Win or lose the SB, the 2007 Pats performance in that game set them below the 89 49ers or the 85 Bears. Those teams dominated obviously inferior opposition in the playoffs. The Pats survived teams and inevitably lost. If the Pats would have played an average game in the SB, I'd say the result would have been 21-10 Pats.
Obviously the niners. The Pats blew it.
1991 Redskins... hands down
The initial poster failed to do his homework. The 1989 49ers weren't even the best 49ers team of that decade. The 1984 49ers were the best team(15-1). Yes I'm old enough to have watched them play.
As far as who was better? It's a 'pickem'. I think Moss might have torn that team a new a.s.s.h.o.l.e
Definetely up there..i'm surprised they dont get mentioned that much, imo they're as good as anybody in recent memory.
I hear you on this. But here's the thing. Asante Samuel had the game-ending interception go through his hands immediately preceding the ridiculous Eli-to-Tyree pass. If Samuel comes up with that, everyone is saying how poorly Eli played (his stats would have been 16-30, less than 200 yds, 1 td, 2 int....with both those int's being HUGE) and how gutsy New England played and how dominant the defense was (holding the Giants to 10 points).
So because that didn't happen, suddenly the Patriots go from #1 all the way down to #43? Just like that, they become that much worse of a team?
Unfortunately, though, you're right. In order to be on the list of the greatest teams of all time, you have to win the title. They didn't. Bummer.
Separate names with a comma.