http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/more/07/23/most.hated.teams/
Check out the scum at #10. Haha.
LTW -> 92 Cowboys @ #3.
Check out the scum at #10. Haha.
LTW -> 92 Cowboys @ #3.
SI's 25 most hated teams in history
- Thread starter DHSC
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
That Cowboys team became one of the best, top 3 definitely, in NFL History. I'd gladly be hated and have that team back. What a special team ... Aikman, Moose, #22, the Playmaker, Harper, Jay Novacek, 5 Elephant OL, Haley, Jeffcoat, Tolbert, Norton, Woodson, etc etc ... Just a wonderful team.
Jerry tears down the revenue structure and you'll get them back.
Not sure about top three through. Clutch big game team, but there were better sides. Obviously I'd say the 85 Bears, but Lombardi's team, Rypien's Skins in 91, The Greatest Show on Turf, Montana's 89 side, the unbeaten Fins, hell, even the 71 Boys. Three bowls in four years is pretty fucking special though.
Not sure about top three through. Clutch big game team, but there were better sides. Obviously I'd say the 85 Bears, but Lombardi's team, Rypien's Skins in 91, The Greatest Show on Turf, Montana's 89 side, the unbeaten Fins, hell, even the 71 Boys. Three bowls in four years is pretty fucking special though.
[quote author=MC Golgotha link=topic=41173.msg1144496#msg1144496 date=1280400931]
Jerry tears down the revenue structure and you'll get them back.
Not sure about top three through. Clutch big game team, but there were better sides. Obviously I'd say the 85 Bears, but Lombardi's team, Rypien's Skins in 91, The Greatest Show on Turf, Montana's 89 side, the unbeaten Fins, hell, even the 71 Boys. Three bowls in four years is pretty fucking special though.
[/quote]
Mark Rypen's Redskins? Better than the 92 - 95 Cowboys..? Not likely. Nor was the Rams team you mention either. And the Bears only did it once... No, I have to go along with Avy that his 'Boys of that era deserve mention in the conversation for 'Greatest Team Ever', along with the 70s Steelers and the 80s 49ers (that I've seen). I love my Patriots of the 00s, but players for player, they didn't match up with any of those three teams.
Also, I don't understand how THAT Cowboys team was so hated - That team was quite humble and inexperienced. Now, the team won in 95, win Dieon and their limos at the SuperBowl, etc... THEM I could understand, those cocky bastards, but not the 92 version. Must be a Jimmy Johnson thing, 'cos his Miami team also got #1!
Jerry tears down the revenue structure and you'll get them back.
Not sure about top three through. Clutch big game team, but there were better sides. Obviously I'd say the 85 Bears, but Lombardi's team, Rypien's Skins in 91, The Greatest Show on Turf, Montana's 89 side, the unbeaten Fins, hell, even the 71 Boys. Three bowls in four years is pretty fucking special though.
[/quote]
Mark Rypen's Redskins? Better than the 92 - 95 Cowboys..? Not likely. Nor was the Rams team you mention either. And the Bears only did it once... No, I have to go along with Avy that his 'Boys of that era deserve mention in the conversation for 'Greatest Team Ever', along with the 70s Steelers and the 80s 49ers (that I've seen). I love my Patriots of the 00s, but players for player, they didn't match up with any of those three teams.
Also, I don't understand how THAT Cowboys team was so hated - That team was quite humble and inexperienced. Now, the team won in 95, win Dieon and their limos at the SuperBowl, etc... THEM I could understand, those cocky bastards, but not the 92 version. Must be a Jimmy Johnson thing, 'cos his Miami team also got #1!
Like you said though, the 95 Boys team is different to the 92 one. I tend to look at teams in the context of a season, as that is often how they are built. If several sides go on to be a dynasty, as the Cowboys did, then great. Those Cowboys teams were play off specialists, no doubt, but they lost regularly in divisional play. Season for season, there have been better sides. Rypien's team won eleven on the trot, and scored thirty plus points in seven of them. They won often and they won big that year. You think about it, the Boys in 93 only went to the Divisional weekend after an OT win against the Giants. Flip that and they have to get past the Vikes and then go to SF for the Divisional game. I don't think any of those Cowboys teams were the greatest sides, but they were big game players. The Bears might only have done it once, but did anyone ever do it better? I don't think so.
Of course, the flip side to that is, big games define it all, and the Cowboys won more than their fair share. Hell, the best Patriots team of all time stumbled at the final hurdle.
JJ's U team in their fatigues was something else. Penn shoved their faces in them though. That Miami side was one of the best ever 1-A teams, but Jimmuh will lose him some clutch games. They could, should, have had four or five in a row. They're going to start up the Irish games again in a couple of years too. That's violence waiting to happen.
Of course, the flip side to that is, big games define it all, and the Cowboys won more than their fair share. Hell, the best Patriots team of all time stumbled at the final hurdle.
JJ's U team in their fatigues was something else. Penn shoved their faces in them though. That Miami side was one of the best ever 1-A teams, but Jimmuh will lose him some clutch games. They could, should, have had four or five in a row. They're going to start up the Irish games again in a couple of years too. That's violence waiting to happen.
[quote author=Whaddapie link=topic=41173.msg1145653#msg1145653 date=1280501720]
[quote author=MC Golgotha link=topic=41173.msg1144496#msg1144496 date=1280400931]
Jerry tears down the revenue structure and you'll get them back.
Not sure about top three through. Clutch big game team, but there were better sides. Obviously I'd say the 85 Bears, but Lombardi's team, Rypien's Skins in 91, The Greatest Show on Turf, Montana's 89 side, the unbeaten Fins, hell, even the 71 Boys. Three bowls in four years is pretty fucking special though.
[/quote]
Mark Rypen's Redskins? Better than the 92 - 95 Cowboys..? Not likely. Nor was the Rams team you mention either. And the Bears only did it once... No, I have to go along with Avy that his 'Boys of that era deserve mention in the conversation for 'Greatest Team Ever', along with the 70s Steelers and the 80s 49ers (that I've seen). I love my Patriots of the 00s, but players for player, they didn't match up with any of those three teams.
Also, I don't understand how THAT Cowboys team was so hated - That team was quite humble and inexperienced. Now, the team won in 95, win Dieon and their limos at the SuperBowl, etc... THEM I could understand, those cocky bastards, but not the 92 version. Must be a Jimmy Johnson thing, 'cos his Miami team also got #1!
[/quote]
And Barry Switzer taking firearms on airplanes.
What an inbred.
[quote author=MC Golgotha link=topic=41173.msg1144496#msg1144496 date=1280400931]
Jerry tears down the revenue structure and you'll get them back.
Not sure about top three through. Clutch big game team, but there were better sides. Obviously I'd say the 85 Bears, but Lombardi's team, Rypien's Skins in 91, The Greatest Show on Turf, Montana's 89 side, the unbeaten Fins, hell, even the 71 Boys. Three bowls in four years is pretty fucking special though.
[/quote]
Mark Rypen's Redskins? Better than the 92 - 95 Cowboys..? Not likely. Nor was the Rams team you mention either. And the Bears only did it once... No, I have to go along with Avy that his 'Boys of that era deserve mention in the conversation for 'Greatest Team Ever', along with the 70s Steelers and the 80s 49ers (that I've seen). I love my Patriots of the 00s, but players for player, they didn't match up with any of those three teams.
Also, I don't understand how THAT Cowboys team was so hated - That team was quite humble and inexperienced. Now, the team won in 95, win Dieon and their limos at the SuperBowl, etc... THEM I could understand, those cocky bastards, but not the 92 version. Must be a Jimmy Johnson thing, 'cos his Miami team also got #1!
[/quote]
And Barry Switzer taking firearms on airplanes.
What an inbred.
[quote author=MC Golgotha link=topic=41173.msg1145726#msg1145726 date=1280508628]
Like you said though, the 95 Boys team is different to the 92 one. I tend to look at teams in the context of a season, as that is often how they are built. If several sides go on to be a dynasty, as the Cowboys did, then great. Those Cowboys teams were play off specialists, no doubt, but they lost regularly in divisional play. Season for season, there have been better sides. Rypien's team won eleven on the trot, and scored thirty plus points in seven of them. They won often and they won big that year. You think about it, the Boys in 93 only went to the Divisional weekend after an OT win against the Giants. Flip that and they have to get past the Vikes and then go to SF for the Divisional game. I don't think any of those Cowboys teams were the greatest sides, but they were big game players. The Bears might only have done it once, but did anyone ever do it better? I don't think so.
Of course, the flip side to that is, big games define it all, and the Cowboys won more than their fair share. Hell, the best Patriots team of all time stumbled at the final hurdle.
JJ's U team in their fatigues was something else. Penn shoved their faces in them though. That Miami side was one of the best ever 1-A teams, but Jimmuh will lose him some clutch games. They could, should, have had four or five in a row. They're going to start up the Irish games again in a couple of years too. That's violence waiting to happen.
[/quote]
Fair, but as you alude to yourself, nobody remembers what teams do in the regular season... The Cowboys may have squeaked in, but they won three titles in four years, so we (rightly) remember them as legends.
Also, though I get your season by season analogy, I think that, on the rare occasion that we discuss a dynasty, they MUST take precedent over a 'once-off'... Yes, the Bears in 85 were magnificent, but they obviously didn't have the staying power of the other four teams mentioned.
Like you said though, the 95 Boys team is different to the 92 one. I tend to look at teams in the context of a season, as that is often how they are built. If several sides go on to be a dynasty, as the Cowboys did, then great. Those Cowboys teams were play off specialists, no doubt, but they lost regularly in divisional play. Season for season, there have been better sides. Rypien's team won eleven on the trot, and scored thirty plus points in seven of them. They won often and they won big that year. You think about it, the Boys in 93 only went to the Divisional weekend after an OT win against the Giants. Flip that and they have to get past the Vikes and then go to SF for the Divisional game. I don't think any of those Cowboys teams were the greatest sides, but they were big game players. The Bears might only have done it once, but did anyone ever do it better? I don't think so.
Of course, the flip side to that is, big games define it all, and the Cowboys won more than their fair share. Hell, the best Patriots team of all time stumbled at the final hurdle.
JJ's U team in their fatigues was something else. Penn shoved their faces in them though. That Miami side was one of the best ever 1-A teams, but Jimmuh will lose him some clutch games. They could, should, have had four or five in a row. They're going to start up the Irish games again in a couple of years too. That's violence waiting to happen.
[/quote]
Fair, but as you alude to yourself, nobody remembers what teams do in the regular season... The Cowboys may have squeaked in, but they won three titles in four years, so we (rightly) remember them as legends.
Also, though I get your season by season analogy, I think that, on the rare occasion that we discuss a dynasty, they MUST take precedent over a 'once-off'... Yes, the Bears in 85 were magnificent, but they obviously didn't have the staying power of the other four teams mentioned.
All fair. But given I'm a Bears fan, and have an established history of hating everything about Texas football, we could be going round a while before I fully concede to any of that...
[quote author=Whaddapie link=topic=41173.msg1145653#msg1145653 date=1280501720]
[quote author=MC Golgotha link=topic=41173.msg1144496#msg1144496 date=1280400931]
Jerry tears down the revenue structure and you'll get them back.
Not sure about top three through. Clutch big game team, but there were better sides. Obviously I'd say the 85 Bears, but Lombardi's team, Rypien's Skins in 91, The Greatest Show on Turf, Montana's 89 side, the unbeaten Fins, hell, even the 71 Boys. Three bowls in four years is pretty fucking special though.
[/quote]
Mark Rypen's Redskins? Better than the 92 - 95 Cowboys..? Not likely. Nor was the Rams team you mention either. And the Bears only did it once... No, I have to go along with Avy that his 'Boys of that era deserve mention in the conversation for 'Greatest Team Ever', along with the 70s Steelers and the 80s 49ers (that I've seen). I love my Patriots of the 00s, but players for player, they didn't match up with any of those three teams.
Also, I don't understand how THAT Cowboys team was so hated - That team was quite humble and inexperienced. Now, the team won in 95, win Dieon and their limos at the SuperBowl, etc... THEM I could understand, those cocky bastards, but not the 92 version. Must be a Jimmy Johnson thing, 'cos his Miami team also got #1!
[/quote]
You're being unnecessarily harsh on your team - they are in that discussion. Whoever is 1,2,3,4 that's up to personal opinion. I always seem to lean towards the Steelers ...
[quote author=MC Golgotha link=topic=41173.msg1144496#msg1144496 date=1280400931]
Jerry tears down the revenue structure and you'll get them back.
Not sure about top three through. Clutch big game team, but there were better sides. Obviously I'd say the 85 Bears, but Lombardi's team, Rypien's Skins in 91, The Greatest Show on Turf, Montana's 89 side, the unbeaten Fins, hell, even the 71 Boys. Three bowls in four years is pretty fucking special though.
[/quote]
Mark Rypen's Redskins? Better than the 92 - 95 Cowboys..? Not likely. Nor was the Rams team you mention either. And the Bears only did it once... No, I have to go along with Avy that his 'Boys of that era deserve mention in the conversation for 'Greatest Team Ever', along with the 70s Steelers and the 80s 49ers (that I've seen). I love my Patriots of the 00s, but players for player, they didn't match up with any of those three teams.
Also, I don't understand how THAT Cowboys team was so hated - That team was quite humble and inexperienced. Now, the team won in 95, win Dieon and their limos at the SuperBowl, etc... THEM I could understand, those cocky bastards, but not the 92 version. Must be a Jimmy Johnson thing, 'cos his Miami team also got #1!
[/quote]
You're being unnecessarily harsh on your team - they are in that discussion. Whoever is 1,2,3,4 that's up to personal opinion. I always seem to lean towards the Steelers ...
[quote author=LeTallecWiz link=topic=41173.msg1146073#msg1146073 date=1280602728]
You're being unnecessarily harsh on your team - they are in that discussion. Whoever is 1,2,3,4 that's up to personal opinion. I always seem to lean towards the Steelers ...
[/quote]
Don't think so, Avy... Look at the 'spine of the four teams that won several SB's, player for player:
Steelers - Bradshaw, Harris, Swann, Stallworth & the Steel Curtain.
49ers - Montana, Craig, Rice, Taylor, Rathman & a suffocating defense that included Ronnie Lott.
Cowboys - Aikman, Emmitt, Irving, Novachek, the best O-Line ever & a very underrated defense.
Patriots - Brady. And a suffocating defense.
I'm not being harsh, I don't think - Just honest. Now, what that comparrison DOES show me is that we have one of the all-time great QB's, considering that he did it with a bunch of dudes that only the more hard-core fans can really remember. And our defense was amoung the best ever too, though you'll not read that it too many websites.
You're being unnecessarily harsh on your team - they are in that discussion. Whoever is 1,2,3,4 that's up to personal opinion. I always seem to lean towards the Steelers ...
[/quote]
Don't think so, Avy... Look at the 'spine of the four teams that won several SB's, player for player:
Steelers - Bradshaw, Harris, Swann, Stallworth & the Steel Curtain.
49ers - Montana, Craig, Rice, Taylor, Rathman & a suffocating defense that included Ronnie Lott.
Cowboys - Aikman, Emmitt, Irving, Novachek, the best O-Line ever & a very underrated defense.
Patriots - Brady. And a suffocating defense.
I'm not being harsh, I don't think - Just honest. Now, what that comparrison DOES show me is that we have one of the all-time great QB's, considering that he did it with a bunch of dudes that only the more hard-core fans can really remember. And our defense was amoung the best ever too, though you'll not read that it too many websites.
The biggest strength of the Patriots (all-world quarterback notwithstanding) was the coaching and management that managed to rescue players many teams thought washed-up or unusable and molding them into a team with an identity and a merciless approach to decimating the opponent. That will to win came from the top down and a lot of opponents were beaten even before they get on the pitch. There was an aura of invincibility, which makes the Giants Super Bowl victory all the more impressive.
Tbh DSE, I think you're giving the Giants far too much credit. THey had a phenomenal defense, but I think the patriots believed the hype a bit too much and got burned by one great catch - by a no name player who never did and nevre will do anything else - late in the game.
Patriots are cheating bastards witha cunt of a qb who's not got time to be interviewed and too important for the pro bowl.
Fuck em.
Fuck em.
[quote author=SaintGeorge67 link=topic=41173.msg1146928#msg1146928 date=1280756277]
Patriots are cheating bastards with a cunt of a qb who's not got time to be interviewed and too important for the pro bowl.
Fuck em.
[/quote]
That's a bit harsh, no? Name ANY superstar QB who isn't too important for the Pro-Bowl? Who were the starters in the Pro-Bowl last year? That "game" is a joke, and you know it.
There are far worse people out there than Tom Brady - FFS, America's sweetheart is too f$%!ing importatnt to go to training camp, or even tell his team if he's returning or not!
Patriots are cheating bastards with a cunt of a qb who's not got time to be interviewed and too important for the pro bowl.
Fuck em.
[/quote]
That's a bit harsh, no? Name ANY superstar QB who isn't too important for the Pro-Bowl? Who were the starters in the Pro-Bowl last year? That "game" is a joke, and you know it.
There are far worse people out there than Tom Brady - FFS, America's sweetheart is too f$%!ing importatnt to go to training camp, or even tell his team if he's returning or not!
[quote author=LeTallecWiz link=topic=41173.msg1146797#msg1146797 date=1280742997]
Tbh DSE, I think you're giving the Giants far too much credit. THey had a phenomenal defense, but I think the patriots believed the hype a bit too much and got burned by one great catch - by a no name player who never did and nevre will do anything else - late in the game.
[/quote]
Don't think so, mate...
The Pats had two glaring weaknesses that season - a slow offensive line that could be physically pushed around by fast, strong D-linemen and small CB's who were very suseptable to big, physical, athletic WR's. Unfortunately for us, the Giants had plenty of talent in both of those critical departments, and they simply played the game of their lives.
That, and the fact that BB f%$!ed us by going for that 4th and 99 when a )admitted long range) FG might have ended it much earlier.
Tbh DSE, I think you're giving the Giants far too much credit. THey had a phenomenal defense, but I think the patriots believed the hype a bit too much and got burned by one great catch - by a no name player who never did and nevre will do anything else - late in the game.
[/quote]
Don't think so, mate...
The Pats had two glaring weaknesses that season - a slow offensive line that could be physically pushed around by fast, strong D-linemen and small CB's who were very suseptable to big, physical, athletic WR's. Unfortunately for us, the Giants had plenty of talent in both of those critical departments, and they simply played the game of their lives.
That, and the fact that BB f%$!ed us by going for that 4th and 99 when a )admitted long range) FG might have ended it much earlier.
You're right of course whad, I just find myself liking them less and less each year. Lions are gonna smash them on thanksgiving en-route to 5-11. You can quote me on that 😉
[quote author=LeTallecWiz link=topic=41173.msg1146797#msg1146797 date=1280742997]
Tbh DSE, I think you're giving the Giants far too much credit. THey had a phenomenal defense, but I think the patriots believed the hype a bit too much and got burned by one great catch - by a no name player who never did and nevre will do anything else - late in the game.
[/quote]
I don't care how they managed it, the Giants held in that game and made the Pats look like any other team (albeit still a very good team) as opposed to an invincible juggernaut.
Tbh DSE, I think you're giving the Giants far too much credit. THey had a phenomenal defense, but I think the patriots believed the hype a bit too much and got burned by one great catch - by a no name player who never did and nevre will do anything else - late in the game.
[/quote]
I don't care how they managed it, the Giants held in that game and made the Pats look like any other team (albeit still a very good team) as opposed to an invincible juggernaut.
Similar threads
