Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Greatest Offenses of the last 15 years
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL Comparisons
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Pick your favorite offense
'06-Present Saints
6%
 6%  [ 7 ]
'07-Present Pats
21%
 21%  [ 25 ]
'03-'10 Colts
10%
 10%  [ 12 ]
'96-'98 Broncos
1%
 1%  [ 2 ]
'02-'05 Chiefs
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
'99-'01 Rams
32%
 32%  [ 37 ]
'98 Vikings
11%
 11%  [ 13 ]
'11 Packers
9%
 9%  [ 11 ]
- Vermeil
2%
 2%  [ 3 ]
Brett Favre
4%
 4%  [ 5 ]
Total Votes : 115

Author Message
Riftt


Joined: 07 Dec 2008
Posts: 428
Location: Minnesota
PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So it's clear there is three teams in this debate.
98 Vikings
99-01 Rams
07-present Pats.

They were/are all amazing offenses, no question. They all had the numbers, each one has at least one HoFer. And they all had good records.

But what truly set the Rams apart? They won it all with an offense. In a world where "Defense wins championships" You must now say "Defense wins championships, except for the greatest show on turf, they win um too"
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
PatriotsWin!


Joined: 10 Jan 2007
Posts: 18847
PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 9:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Riftt wrote:
So it's clear there is three teams in this debate.
98 Vikings
99-01 Rams
07-present Pats.

They were/are all amazing offenses, no question. They all had the numbers, each one has at least one HoFer. And they all had good records.

But what truly set the Rams apart? They won it all with an offense. In a world where "Defense wins championships" You must now say "Defense wins championships, except for the greatest show on turf, they win um too"


? The Rams had by far the best defenses out of that group.
_________________

Mack on the sig
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jrry32


Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 49689
PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 9:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FirstDownFaulk wrote:

Did I say anything about the "rules and regulations" ?? No....I said CONDITIONS. The game is played inside a climate controlled dome in the arena league just like the Rams play in.


First of all, the point of the matter is that it's an idiotic comparison. Second of all, most people consider the field to fall under conditions of the game. Third of all, it's an idiotic comparison.

Quote:
The Rams were not the better offense and it was proven in the Super Bowl when they were PUNISHED by the Patriots defense. Their receivers were soft, and folded like a cheap chair when hit.


And here's where your argument gets just plain funny. The Patriots abused what was essentially a loop-hole in the rules. A loop-hole that was closed in 2004 and helped the Patriots do what they did in 2007. You just essentially argued against your own argument. The Rams doing what they did while contending with much less pass friendly rules at the time completely negates any sort of argument you have.

And lets not talk about folding in the Super Bowl. The GSOT won one Super Bowl and lost one where they scored 17 points(427 yards of offense). The 2007 Patriots did not win a Super Bowl...they lost one where they scored 14 points(274 yards of offense). The Super Bowl argument doesn't help you because the Rams produced 400+ yards of offense in both Super Bowls they were in and won 1. 07 Patriots did not win there's and could not produce 300+ yards of offense.

PatriotsWin! wrote:
07 Pats, no question.

For those saying the early 2000 Rams and how it was harder back then... then why not pick the 98 Vikings? The Vikings scored more than any of those Rams teams.


Vikings couldn't sustain their success, did not win a Super Bowl and had a lesser QB(if you are to believe some of the Moss fans like NBT, they had a journeyman QB).
_________________
The LBC wrote:
Harper41 wrote:
Don't worry. Sean Payton would pass the ball in a Tornado.

But would he do it in a Sharknado?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CP3MVP


Joined: 07 Feb 2012
Posts: 474
PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 9:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jrry32 wrote:
CP3MVP wrote:
Becaus they didn't produce the best offense. The patriots produced the best offense of all time, that's why their the greatest offense


Patriots played under a different set of rules. And pre-Warner injury in 2000, the GSOT was blowing every offense in NFL history out of the water.

If they had the best offense in terms of the players then I think you can see why people would take them.


There's been no rule changes to help the passing game. That's a myth
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jrry32


Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 49689
PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CP3MVP wrote:
jrry32 wrote:
CP3MVP wrote:
Becaus they didn't produce the best offense. The patriots produced the best offense of all time, that's why their the greatest offense


Patriots played under a different set of rules. And pre-Warner injury in 2000, the GSOT was blowing every offense in NFL history out of the water.

If they had the best offense in terms of the players then I think you can see why people would take them.


There's been no rule changes to help the passing game. That's a myth


That's not a myth.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=1771047
And since you're arguing technicalities, there have definitely been rule changes since then to help the passing game. Namely roughing the passer rule changes and defenseless WR rule changes(but these came after 07).

And don't even try to argue that 2004 didn't change anything because it changed a lot and really opened up the passing game. If you watch what the 2001 Pats did in the Super Bow, you'd realize just how badly they'd have been blown out under today's rules. They abused the hell out of that loophole that the NFL closed in 2004. A lot of teams did back then. Patriots just did it better than anyone else.

The GSOT would have exploited the heck out of that change. Holt, Bruce and Faulk were the exact type of players who benefited the most from that change.
_________________
The LBC wrote:
Harper41 wrote:
Don't worry. Sean Payton would pass the ball in a Tornado.

But would he do it in a Sharknado?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DarrellGreen28


Joined: 16 Jan 2011
Posts: 456
Location: Rockville, MD
PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FirstDownFaulk, I'm sorry but your logic made me laugh and look like an idiot in front of my family who think I'm doing work. You say the GSOT on the turf shouldn't be considered because of their performance in the 2001 Super Bowl when 07 Patriots had an even worse performance in the Super Bowl Laughing
_________________
RG3
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CP3MVP


Joined: 07 Feb 2012
Posts: 474
PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The rule changes of 2004

Due to several incidents during the 2003 NFL season, officials are authorized to penalize excessive celebration. The 15-yard unsportsmanlike conduct penalty will be marked off from the spot at the end of the previous play or, after a score, on the ensuing kickoff. If the infraction is ruled flagrant by the officials, the player can be ejected.

In addition to the numbers 8089, wide receivers will now be allowed to use numbers 10-19.

A punt or missed field goal that is untouched by the receiving team is immediately dead once it touches either the end zone or any member of the kicking team in the end zone. Previously, a punt or missed field goal that lands in the end zone before being controlled by the kicking team could be picked up by a member of the receiving team and immediately run the other way.

No rule changes to help out the passing game. The no contact rule was put in place in 1978
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jrry32


Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 49689
PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CP3MVP wrote:
No rule changes to help out the passing game. The no contact rule was put in place in 1978


You were just provided with proof and direct quotes from members of the competition committee. To deny that it happened is just denial of the truth. Are you in denial?
_________________
The LBC wrote:
Harper41 wrote:
Don't worry. Sean Payton would pass the ball in a Tornado.

But would he do it in a Sharknado?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NextBigThing


Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 22782
Location: Beat Of My Own Drum
PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is actually from a different thread:

jrry32 wrote:
vikingsrule wrote:
If we are talking about the 1998 Vikings, which we are suppose to be, dont discredit Cris Carter, who is superior to both Holt and Bruce. In addition to Jake Reed who was a fine WR himself. Robert Smith had a huge year too, and if injuries didnt derail the early part of his career and he didnt retire early, he very well could have had HOF credentials. That guy was a fantastic natural runner.

For the record, I went with the Rams because I liked there defense a bit more. However, the Vikes offense of 1998 is better than the greatest show on turf.


No, he wasn't.

Robert Smith might have been a HOFer if he had a long career but he was still was no Marshall Faulk. The Vikes offense wasn't better than the GSOT. I would agree with them being even...as I said earlier. But they're not better.


1. Cris Carter was better than both Holt and Bruce. Nobody will agree with you on that.

2. You need to pick a year. You continue to say "99-01", but haven't picked a year. I.E. the 07 Pats. 98 Vikes. The 99? Rams.

The biggest problem is Randy Moss. Moss shredded the Rams for 188 yards and 2 Touchdowns in the 1999 playoffs, which the vikings lost, 49-37. The difference in the game was the Rams defensive liens constant battering of Viking QB Jeff George. When given to pass, George and Moss marched up and down the field.

And that was when everybody knew Moss. Teams spent the entire off season figuring out that they need to 1) jam him at the line, 2) shadow him with a corner, and 3) keep a safety on him - all 3 at ALL TIMES.

If we are just grading out offenses, the 1998 Vikings have this in the bag. Randy Moss of 1998 was most dangerous offensive player of all time. 17 touchdowns, 2 more long ones nullified by offensive holding, 5 (!) pass interference penalties of 40 yards or more. Just a ridiculously explosive player. Cris Carter was a consensus top 5 receiver at the time, with solid athleticism, great ball skills, and sticky icky hands. Jake Reed a top 20 receiver in football, and was their #3 options. A tall, athletic receiver how good ball skills, Reed went for over 1000 yards in 1996 and 1997.

The 1998 vikings wide receiver corp is the best of all time. No possible way to match up for them. Throw in Robert Smith, a top 10 running back, an all world offensive line, and a cannon armed QB making the best decisions of his life, and you have the greatest offense ever. The Vikings could have scored significantly more points than they ended up scoring, too, but they didn't really press the 'Moss' gear for a period during the middle of the year. Despite dominant performances in weeks 1, 5 and 5 (3 games 500 yards and 5 touchdowns), the vikings underused Moss for a stretch prior to the 2nd Green Bay game. From than on, Moss was the de facto focal point, and the offense erupted. Week 13: 46 points. Week 14: 48 points. Week 15: 38 points. Week 16: 50 points.Moss scored 8 touchdowns in those 4 games. Had the Vikes featured Moss more earlier in the season, they might have topped 600 points, because nothing on Earth slowed him down in the 2nd half of 1998.

The Rams had Faulk. But he is a a RB. Maybe one of the most dangerous ever in 1999, but he still falls well behind the most dangerous receiver, and player, ever in Moss of 1998. Both are very complete offenses, but the 1998 Vikings had to be the most feared offense ever. Even the 2007 Patriots didnt strike quite as fast as the 1998 Vikings, who finished the year with 40 scoring "Drives" or 3 minutes or less.
_________________
A sunny disposition is worth more than fortune. Young people should know that it can be cultivated; that the mind like the body can be moved from the shade into sunshine. Thine own reproach alone do fear
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jrry32


Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 49689
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 12:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

NextBigThing wrote:


1. Cris Carter was better than both Holt and Bruce. Nobody will agree with you on that.


33 year old Cris Carter was not better than an in his prime Ike Bruce and an in his prime Torry Holt. No one will agree with you on that.

Quote:
2. You need to pick a year. You continue to say "99-01", but haven't picked a year. I.E. the 07 Pats. 98 Vikes. The 99? Rams.


That's the thing about the Rams. Unlike these other teams, they had a sustained period of success. So no, I don't have to pick a year. They did what the others couldn't and that sets them apart.

But if I were to pick a year, the 2000 Rams offense was their peak before Warner messed his hand up. The numbers they put up prior to his injury dwarfed every other offense in NFL history.

Quote:
The biggest problem is Randy Moss. Moss shredded the Rams for 188 yards and 2 Touchdowns in the 1999 playoffs, which the vikings lost, 49-37. The difference in the game was the Rams defensive liens constant battering of Viking QB Jeff George. When given to pass, George and Moss marched up and down the field.

And that was when everybody knew Moss. Teams spent the entire off season figuring out that they need to 1) jam him at the line, 2) shadow him with a corner, and 3) keep a safety on him - all 3 at ALL TIMES.


Interesting because I'd say the biggest problem was Marshall Faulk. Because unlike Moss, teams didn't just have to alter their coverage, they had to alter their defensive personnel for him.

Quote:
If we are just grading out offenses, the 1998 Vikings have this in the bag. Randy Moss of 1998 was most dangerous offensive player of all time. 17 touchdowns, 2 more long ones nullified by offensive holding, 5 (!) pass interference penalties of 40 yards or more. Just a ridiculously explosive player. Cris Carter was a consensus top 5 receiver at the time, with solid athleticism, great ball skills, and sticky icky hands. Jake Reed a top 20 receiver in football, and was their #3 options. A tall, athletic receiver how good ball skills, Reed went for over 1000 yards in 1996 and 1997.


No, he wasn't. This is something that most Moss homers wouldn't even claim.

Quote:
The 1998 vikings wide receiver corp is the best of all time. No possible way to match up for them. Throw in Robert Smith, a top 10 running back, an all world offensive line, and a cannon armed QB making the best decisions of his life, and you have the greatest offense ever. The Vikings could have scored significantly more points than they ended up scoring, too, but they didn't really press the 'Moss' gear for a period during the middle of the year. Despite dominant performances in weeks 1, 5 and 5 (3 games 500 yards and 5 touchdowns), the vikings underused Moss for a stretch prior to the 2nd Green Bay game. From than on, Moss was the de facto focal point, and the offense erupted. Week 13: 46 points. Week 14: 48 points. Week 15: 38 points. Week 16: 50 points.Moss scored 8 touchdowns in those 4 games. Had the Vikes featured Moss more earlier in the season, they might have topped 600 points, because nothing on Earth slowed him down in the 2nd half of 1998.


Since we're quoting people, let me remind you of your words:
NextBigThing wrote:
-Randall Cunningham had been out of football for 2 years; and had never been known as an elite passer. Give him the freak, he becomes all pro. Take away the freak, he sucks.


How can you have the greatest offense ever if they were led by a QB who "sucks"?

Quote:
The Rams had Faulk. But he is a a RB. Maybe one of the most dangerous ever in 1999, but he still falls well behind the most dangerous receiver, and player, ever in Moss of 1998. Both are very complete offenses, but the 1998 Vikings had to be the most feared offense ever. Even the 2007 Patriots didnt strike quite as fast as the 1998 Vikings, who finished the year with 40 scoring "Drives" or 3 minutes or less.


Actually, that's thing you don't understand. HBs especially one with Faulk's receiving ability dictate far more mismatches, coverage/defensive changes and personnel changes than elite WRs. Faulk made the defenses adjust more for him than they did for Moss. Especially from 99 to 01 when he was unstoppable. He was a scoring machine who led the NFL in yards per carry 3 years running and was playing like a top tier receiver at the time. Faulk from 99 to 01 was a more dangerous player than Moss was in 98. He was a bigger mismatch and he could beat you in far more ways.

And if we're talking fear, Faulk during that time was far more feared/respected around the league than Moss was in 98.

In terms of pure talent, I'd say they were pretty equal overall although the Warner vs. Cunningham match-up gives the Rams the edge plus the fact that the Rams sustained it gives them an edge.

What you don't understand is that the GSOT featured 2 HOF WRs in their primes, a HOF HB in his prime(posting arguably the best 3 years the HB position has ever seen) and a HOF QB in his prime with their QB and HB combining to win 3 consecutive regular season MVP awards. That's unbelievable.
_________________
The LBC wrote:
Harper41 wrote:
Don't worry. Sean Payton would pass the ball in a Tornado.

But would he do it in a Sharknado?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
S-jax39


Joined: 23 Aug 2010
Posts: 6858
Location: [D]MV
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Since when is Chris Carter better than Torry Holt or Bruce? Laughing
_________________
Welp
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Vikefan79


Joined: 05 Apr 2005
Posts: 29761
Location: Atlanta
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 5:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

S-jax39 wrote:
Since when is Chris Carter better than Torry Holt or Bruce? Laughing


Since when was he not?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Vikefan79


Joined: 05 Apr 2005
Posts: 29761
Location: Atlanta
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 5:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

jrry32 wrote:

Interesting because I'd say the biggest problem was Marshall Faulk. Because unlike Moss, teams didn't just have to alter their coverage, they had to alter their defensive personnel for him.



They just alter their drafts. Packers took 3 defensive backs in the 99 draft with their first 3 picks to account for Randy Moss.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jrry32


Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 49689
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 5:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Vikefan79 wrote:
S-jax39 wrote:
Since when is Chris Carter better than Torry Holt or Bruce? Laughing


Since when was he not?


If you want to argue career, it's debatable and your prerogative but 33 year old Cris Carter was not better than in their primes Holt and Bruce.

Vikefan79 wrote:
jrry32 wrote:

Interesting because I'd say the biggest problem was Marshall Faulk. Because unlike Moss, teams didn't just have to alter their coverage, they had to alter their defensive personnel for him.



They just alter their drafts. Packers took 3 straight defensive backs in the 99 draft to account for Randy Moss.


Obviously. Rolling Eyes

I guess I should give Marshall credit for the 49ers drafting 4 defensive players in the first 2 rounds in 2000. Laughing
_________________
The LBC wrote:
Harper41 wrote:
Don't worry. Sean Payton would pass the ball in a Tornado.

But would he do it in a Sharknado?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Vikefan79


Joined: 05 Apr 2005
Posts: 29761
Location: Atlanta
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 5:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

jrry32 wrote:

Obviously. Rolling Eyes

I guess I should give Marshall credit for the 49ers drafting 4 defensive players in the first 2 rounds in 2000. Laughing


What other reason would the Packers have to take 3 defensive backs with the first 3 picks? The Packers were still competing for the division. The 49ers weren't even close. 49ers were drafting probably what they felt was the BPA and just trying to rebuild that 49ers team.

Ron Wolf came out and said Moss was the reason they drafted those players.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL Comparisons All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 5 of 10

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group