| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Best Modern Era Offense |
| 2007 New England Patriots |
|
43% |
[ 23 ] |
| 2004 Indianapolis Colts |
|
13% |
[ 7 ] |
| 2000 St. Louis Rams |
|
20% |
[ 11 ] |
| 1998 Minnesota Vikings |
|
15% |
[ 8 ] |
| 1994 San Francisco 49ers |
|
7% |
[ 4 ] |
| 1984 Miami Dolphins |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| 1983 Washington Redskins |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 53 |
|
| Author |
Message |
sf49erboy82
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Posts: 728
Location: 4 8 15 16 23 42
|
 Posted: Sat Aug 09, 2008 11:58 pm Post subject: The Greatest Offense of the Modern Era! |
 |
|
|
I saw a discussion like this begin to take place in another thread and wanted some thoughts. I've narrowed it down to 7 offenses (feel free to chime in on an offense you feel deserving), and made it during the modern era since most posters wouldn't know anything about old offenses or really care about them  . Anyways, here they are:
A. 2007 New England Patriots:
I think most of us are familiar with this team. Destroyed all things that opposed them. Brady + Moss = Scary.
16-0 regular season record.
589 points scored (record), 36.8 ppg.
Key Players:
Tom Brady: 4806 yds, 50 TD (record), 8 INT, 117.2 Rating
Randy Moss: 98 rec, 1493 yds, 23 TD (record)
Wes Welker: 112 rec, 1175 yds, 8 TD
B. 2004 Indianapolis Colts:
Classic example of an offense carrying a defense. Manning was at the top of his game.
12-4 regular season record.
522 points scored, 32.6 ppg.
Key Players:
Peyton Manning: 4557 yds, 49 TD, 10 INT, 121.1 Rating (record)
Edgerrin James: 1548 yds rush, 483 yds rec, 9 TD
Marvin Harrison: 86 rec, 1116 yds, 15 TD
Reggie Wayne: 77 rec, 1210 yds, 12 TD
Brandon Stokely: 68 rec, 1077 yds, 10 TD
C. 2000 St Louis Rams:
"The Greatest Show on Turf" featured some of the most dynamic players and offenses ever assembled. Too bad the defense was as bad as the offense was good (1st in offense, last in defense). Had Kurt Warner and Trent Green been a single QB entity, they would have passed for a record 5492 yds. Astonishing.
10-6 regular season record.
540 points scored, 33.8 ppg.
Key Players:
Kurt Warner (11 games): 3429 yds, 21 TD, 18 INT, 98.3 Rating
Marshall Faulk: 1359 yds rush, 5.4 ypc, 830 yds rec, 26 TD
Torry Holt: 82 rec, 1635 yds, 19.9 ypc, 6 TD
Isaac Bruce: 87 rec, 1471 yds, 9 TD
D. 1998 Minnesota Vikings:
The Randy Moss Factor.
15-1 regular season record.
556 points scored, 34.8 ppg.
Key Players:
Randall Cunningham: 3704 yds, 34 TD, 10 INT, 106.0 Rating
Robert Smith: 1187 yds rush, 291 yds rec, 8 TD
Randy Moss: 69 rec, 1313 yds, 17 TD
Chris Carter: 78 rec, 1011 yds, 12 TD
E. 1994 San Francisco 49ers:
There have been many great 49er offenses, but I chose this one for it's shear offensive dominance (the 89 team had whole team dominance). It was Steve Young and Jerry Rice in their prime as they averaged 44 ppg in the post-season.
13-3 record.
505 points scored, 31.6 ppg.
Key Players:
Steve Young: 3969 yds, 35 TD, 10 INT, 112.8 Rating, 293 yds rush, 7 TD
Ricky Watters: 877 yds rush, 719 yds rec, 11 TD
Jerry Rice: 112 rec, 1499 yds, 13 TD
Brent Jones: 49 rec, 670 yds, 9 TD
F. 1984 Miami Dolphins:
This team was about 1 man, Dan Marino. Marino was so good in 84, he could have passed for 4000 yds and 30 TD with some 5 year old kids (or the 2007 49er offense).
14-2 record.
513 points scored, 32.1 ppg.
Key Players:
Dan Marino: 5084 yds, 48 TD, 17 INT, 108.9 Rating
Mark Clayton: 73 rec, 1389 yds, 18 TD
Mark Duper: 71 rec, 1306 yds, 8 TD
G. 1983 Washington Redskins:
The unknown offense never gets talked about. But in 83, they were an offensive powerhouse unlike anything anyone had ever seen.
14-2 regular season record.
541 points scored, 33.8 ppg.
Key Players:
Joe Theismann: 3714 yds, 29 TD, 11 INT, 97.0 Rating
John Riggins: 1347 yds, 24 TD
Joe Washington: 772 yds rush, 5.3 ypc, 454 yds rec, 6 TD
Charlie Brown: 78 rec, 1225 yds, 8 TD
_________________
| Brady > Montana wrote: | | Why should Babe Ruth be considered one of the greatest athletes? The only reason he was so great is because he was better than everyone else out there. |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jing
Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 4156
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 10, 2008 12:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Without a doubt the most complete of those looks to be the 2004 Indianapolis Colts. However from weeks 1-10 of the 2007 regular season, there wasn't a team more dominating during a certain stretch offensively then the New England Patriots.
_________________
So, you my wonder, what exactly is the thought process of a Colts fan? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
56+50=Superbowl
Joined: 07 Jan 2007
Posts: 1885
Location: Wausau, WI
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 10, 2008 1:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
New England hands down. They scored at will for the first half and early second half of the season. Brady and Moss both broke TD records at thier respective postions as you said and Brady's TD-INT raito was 50-8.  That is frikin amazing.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
elstevoamigo
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
Posts: 1587
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 10, 2008 2:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
you would think the patriots but they ran up the score and i dont think many of the other teams listed did that as well. you gotta remember too that receivers have alot more calls goin their way nowadays.
the amazing thing about the pats is that they passed the ball alot and their run game wasnt all that great(hardly used), yet they still did what they did.
BUT, that amazing offense wasn't there in the big game.
_________________
thanks XsA MainEvent for the sig and avatar |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Calvert28
Joined: 21 Oct 2006
Posts: 9983
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 10, 2008 2:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
92 Cowboys need to be an option. Even though there are 2 maybe 3 better up there, they still need to be an option.
_________________
"Hunt you down without mercy, hunt you down All Nightmare Long!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hilit
Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 8495
Location: The University of Edinburgh
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 10, 2008 3:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Calvert28 wrote: | | 92 Cowboys need to be an option. Even though there are 2 maybe 3 better up there, they still need to be an option. |
No they don't. There are a lot of teams that would be up there before them. A lot.
_________________
In reference to Marks cheap shot on Vilma
| mozwanted wrote: | | I guess we can call him Dirty Sanzhez from now on? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Buckrock101
Joined: 14 Oct 2007
Posts: 20286
Location: Sudden Valley
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 10, 2008 3:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
I personally would take the Rams' offense there. It is better all-round IMO, with a great running back in the mix as well. That is very valuable, over the teams that are solely based around the passing attack. It comes down to personal preferance for me, though.
_________________
| primetime21335 wrote: | | Buckrock is right. |
| McNabbMcFadden wrote: | | All Hail Buckrock |
You got me confused with someone who repeats himself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Calvert28
Joined: 21 Oct 2006
Posts: 9983
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 10, 2008 7:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Hilit wrote: | | Calvert28 wrote: | | 92 Cowboys need to be an option. Even though there are 2 maybe 3 better up there, they still need to be an option. |
No they don't. There are a lot of teams that would be up there before them. A lot. |
If your only talking about points scored or some other ridiculious stat that they weren't even able to cap on then yea. As far as talent, depth, and overall play. No sorry there are very very few teams that could match them.
Stats aren't everything Hilit. Especially when they didn't come through in the big games unlike that Cowboys offense in 92 or even 95.
_________________
"Hunt you down without mercy, hunt you down All Nightmare Long!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hilit
Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 8495
Location: The University of Edinburgh
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 10, 2008 8:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Calvert28 wrote: |
If your only talking about points scored or some other ridiculious stat that they weren't even able to cap on then yea. As far as talent, depth, and overall play. No sorry there are very very few teams that could match them.
Stats aren't everything Hilit. Especially when they didn't come through in the big games unlike that Cowboys offense in 92 or even 95. |
 I didn't know points scored was a "ridiculous stat".
Your being a homer though. What matters isn't name recognition or perceptions of talent. An offenses job is to gain yards, points, first down, move the ball etc and by those measurements the Cowboys don't even register.
_________________
In reference to Marks cheap shot on Vilma
| mozwanted wrote: | | I guess we can call him Dirty Sanzhez from now on? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Enrage
Joined: 14 Dec 2005
Posts: 14728
Location: Fort Knox, KY
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 10, 2008 8:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Buckrock101 wrote: | | I personally would take the Rams' offense there. It is better all-round IMO, with a great running back in the mix as well. That is very valuable, over the teams that are solely based around the passing attack. It comes down to personal preferance for me, though. |
Robert Smith was a very good running back too, although not as good as Marshall. He went to the Pro Bowl twice and led the NFL in rushing once. Him and Leroy Hoard made an effective RB combo and the 98 Vikings were certainly not a team that solely used the pass.
_________________
| Brett Favre wrote: | | I don't know what Brett Favre will do. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain_Morgan
Joined: 27 Jun 2008
Posts: 684
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 10, 2008 8:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| New England ran up the score so they shouldn't be included in the list. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Calvert28
Joined: 21 Oct 2006
Posts: 9983
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 10, 2008 8:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Hilit wrote: |
I didn't know points scored was a "ridiculous stat".
Your being a homer though. What matters isn't name recognition or perceptions of talent. An offenses job is to gain yards, points, first down, move the ball etc and by those measurements the Cowboys don't even register. |
An offense first and foremost most important job is to get the ball into the endzone when it counts. Something most of those teams fell short on.
And how am I being a homer? An offense that features an eventual 4 HOF maybe more that have done more then enough to be in the consideration which every sports analyst has included, has discussed, and has ranked in their top 10 among greatest offenses of all time and your calling me a homer?
How about stop sipping your haterade Hilit. There is absolutely no reason to leave the Cowboys off when they have accomplished more then any of those other offenses on that list. Like for example featuring a pretty ring on their finger. Something those other offenses dont even register.
_________________
"Hunt you down without mercy, hunt you down All Nightmare Long!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Enrage
Joined: 14 Dec 2005
Posts: 14728
Location: Fort Knox, KY
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 10, 2008 8:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Calvert28 wrote: | | There is absolutely no reason to leave the Cowboys off when they have accomplished more then any of those other offenses on that list. Like for example featuring a pretty ring on their finger. Something those other offenses dont even register. |
That a team accomplishment, not an offensive accomplishment.
_________________
| Brett Favre wrote: | | I don't know what Brett Favre will do. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Calvert28
Joined: 21 Oct 2006
Posts: 9983
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 10, 2008 8:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Enrage wrote: | | Calvert28 wrote: | | There is absolutely no reason to leave the Cowboys off when they have accomplished more then any of those other offenses on that list. Like for example featuring a pretty ring on their finger. Something those other offenses dont even register. |
That a team accomplishment, not an offensive accomplishment. |
Again like I said the offense's biggest priority is getting the ball in the endzone when it counts which again like I say nearly all of those teams fell short of during all those years.
As for the team accomplishment argument. An offense is one side of the ball last time I checked, therefore takes up a large portion of what a team does. This isn't like saying a player won a SB. This is saying the offense won the championship.
You know kinda like the old saying defense wins championships? Well thats not true all the time.
_________________
"Hunt you down without mercy, hunt you down All Nightmare Long!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hilit
Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 8495
Location: The University of Edinburgh
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 10, 2008 9:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Heres a (messy) comparison of 4 of the teams
Observations:
 The Rams had so many yards it was ridiculous. Only team to break 7,000
The Rams average gain per play is even more impressive. Only team to break 7.0 yards per play
The Patriots had an incredible number of 1st downs. 662 total and no one else broke 400
The Colts had by far the most effective passing game. Highest average gain, highest number of touchdowns and only 1 more pick than the Patriots.
The Rams had the best running game. Highest average gain by half a yard and easily the most touchdowns.
The Rams high number of turnovers may remove them from the running. Double the total turnovers of the Pats and Colts
_________________
In reference to Marks cheap shot on Vilma
| mozwanted wrote: | | I guess we can call him Dirty Sanzhez from now on? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
