Professional Football Researchers Association Forum
PFRA is a nonprofit organization dedicated to the history of professional football. Formed in 1979, PFRA members include many of the game's foremost historians and writers.
Brian wolf wrote:In my view JuggernautJ ... 1966 Packers, 1967-68 Colts, 1976 Raiders, 2003-04 Patriots ...
Good, interesting choices.
Regarding the Colts, it seems you view the '67-'68 incarnation superior to '58-'59?
Both were (imho) excellent, superior teams... but I think I'd go with the '50's version... they did win 2 Championships...
1927 Giants, anyone?
1929, '30 or '31 Packers?
(The '29 Packers were undefeated, with one tie and featured Lavvie Dilweg, Verne Lewellen, Cal Hubbard and Johnny Blood... among many others...)
Thats true about the Weeb Ewbank led Colts from 58-59 but I also admire the Colts and Shula chasing undefeated seasons during 67-68, with the team losing its last game of the year both seasons. A 26-3-2 record over that span.
As dear to my heart as the 1967-68 Colts are, the 1958-59 Colts did win 2 straight titles. In the end, that's what it's all about: "Just win, baby."
The Colts also came oh-so-close in 1957, and in 1960 they were headed for another division title when they lost Alan Ameche and dropped the last 4 games of the season.
The top-two Colts teams ever - Baltimore or Indianapolis - are ’58 & ’59, plain and simple! Yes, Richard, it’s all about winning championships when it comes to ‘best-ever’!
As deservingly-so Legendary that Shula is. he simply didn't know how to get it done in the '60s when it came to finishing the job! In a regular season game, I'll take '64, '67, or '68 over either '58 and '59. But in an elimination "must-win" game...I'll take either Weeb squad, and by a lopsided margin. If Browns, Rams, and Jets respectively blew them out in each of those "must-wins" (and by a 71-17 total, mind you), then either back-to-back squad (who likely is better than any of those three) would have delivered a convincer as well. '58/'59 Colts are like the '97/'98 Broncos, a truly great back-to-back team, but historically overshadowed by even greater teams from just before or just after their time.
Shula finally got that part of his game together for '72. And boy did he make it count! Getting a team who lost the championship the year before and not only getting them back there the following year - but winning it! Not an easy task considering it would take another 46 years for a runner-up to ever achieve that feat again! And then the simple keeping a team undefeated for the entire year! And dealing with every distraction that could possibly come up. Not to mention, again, his starting QB being out with a 38-year-old filling in. 1984 a big coaching achievement for him. But I'll pick '72 for his best year. And '73 for his second-best being that he followed up such an accomplishment with a...15-2 repeat!
Why he never won another title after '72/'73? My answer will simply be that he never HC'd the best team in the league ever again. '74 was quite SB-win-capable-enough but it just wasn't to be. Dolphins/Steelers AFFCG in '74 would have been quite intriguing, but bias aside I feel that by the time the playoffs began, the Steelers were now #1. Therefore, you can't really say that Shula left any championships "on the table" in those final 23 seasons. They weren't the best in '82, Washington was. And they weren't the best in '84, San Fran was; and by a noticeable margin as SBXIX indicated. So no crime there. Yes he had Marino, but who else did he have around him? Just two losing seasons in a third-of-a-century, and countless winning ones/playoff berths post-'73...he did alright. Not 'Mt Rushmore' with me, but he and Landry both tied with each other just inside the Top Ten IMO.
Curly, yes, did go unbeaten with one tie in 1929 and you cannot forget Guy going 21-0-3 in 1922/1923 (not to mention he completing that first-ever NFL three-peat the following year, now in Cleveland, going 7-1-1)! Those back-to-back Canton unbeatens are at the top of the list when comes to best-ever two-year stretches. ’72/’73 Dolphins (32-2) would have to be #2. But had the Bears finished the job in ’42 (or, maybe, had Halas stayed on to the end), ’41/’42 would be runner-up instead. 24-1 is what the two-year mark would have been!
Back to Chamberlin...perhaps its nick-picking, he did get inducted in '65, but I would think he would have gotten in the Hall for that very first class of '63. He RULED that very first decade of the league! Has got to be the best player/coach ever in NFL history. After the very obvious achievements with the Bulldogs, he then goes to Philly and turns the Yellowjackets into a champ. What the Fonz was to 'Happy Days', Guy WAS to the 1920s NFL!
Last edited by 74_75_78_79_ on Sun Nov 20, 2022 3:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Just wanted to say I've enjoyed this discussion, and it's just what I had hoped for when I posted the original question. I see the 1985 Bears have not been mentioned, and I agree with that omission even though they are often brought up in this discussion. The 1972 Dolphins, 1962 Packers, 1978 Steelers and 1984 49ers all won additional championships around the same time, whereas the 1985 Bears were one and done.
Like the 85 Bears, the 84 49ers were one-and-done as well, which is why many people, including myself, think the 89 team might have been better going back-to-back as champions. Thats the question, is it better to judge a team only for one year, like the 72 Dolphins or 48 Browns or a two-year tier like JuggernautJ brought up with the 89 49ers, 62 Packers, 73 Dolphins, 75 Steelers etc ?
*I think there is a distinction between "greatest team of all time" and "greatest single season team of all-time". The 85 Bears wouldn't qualify for one but would qualify for the other. I think the 72 Dolphins could qualify for both. As great as they were, I'm not sure if any of the 70's Steelers teams would qualify for greatest single season team. I always thought the 75 team was the best, and (strangely) if they had won their meaningless final regular season game against the Rams to finish 13-1 instead of 12-2, that might change how they are viewed.
*What the 72 Dolphins accomplished is unique (at this point). They went undefeated in the regular season and in a multiple-game postseason format. They even had to play the AFC Championship on the road. I get the 'weak schedule' was a factor, but a lot of teams in NFL history have played weak schedules. Only one has gone undefeated. And the Dolphins went undefeated while winning a majority of their games with the backup QB.
*I think the pressure facing the Dolphins in that 72 postseason was monumental. The team had gotten waxed by Dallas in the previous Super Bowl. Shula had two huge chokes on his record (64 and 68) and had seemingly lost every big game. Earl Morrall had presided over Super Bowl III. And the team had to maintain an undefeated record. They didn't play particularly well in the postseason, but they got the job done, no small feat considering the circumstances. They really should have won the Super Bowl 24-0, but a terrible Griese INT in the endzone and Yepremian's 'pass' made the final score appear closer than reality.
*I think the NFL of the late 60's (67-69) was watered down. You had many of the best pro players playing in the AFL at that point, and you also had expansion teams in Atlanta and New Orleans. The Cowboys, Colts, Vikes & Rams put up some huge point differentials and bit win totals, but I don't think they were really 'best of all time' material.
Interesting no one has mentioned any teams from the 50s as candidates for the greatest list even though there were three back-to-backs (1952-53 Lions, 1954-55 Browns, 1958-59 Colts).
Great champions indeed Shipley, though I was trying to look at one year or two year champions with minimal losses, though some teams I mentioned had four to six losses in a season like the 1988 49ers who were much better than their record indicated, following a 13-2 season in 1987 ...