What undefeated run would be more impressive?

[raptorsfan29]

If indy and/or NO go 18-0 leading up to the super bowl, what run would be more impressive?

out of the 3

New Orleans
Indy
New England

[ethurst22]

Honestly, I don't see either of those teams getting to the Super Bowl.

The Colts are living large off of luck.

The Saints remind me of the 84 Dolphins which got big leads and outscored people.

I think that if NE plays the Colts again, they are going to beat them. We all know that the Bolts from San Diego are notorious for starting off slow and run past Denver at the end of the year for the division. The Bolts could get to the second round and that's it.

If the Patriots get to the playoffs, I would not be surprised to see a Patriots-Cowboys or as much as I hate it, Patriots-Minnesota SB with NE pulling the upset.

[dolphins4life]

The Saints because they aren't benefitting from ridiculous pass interference calls like the Colts are every single week. 

There was another one in the Texans game.  If you have NFL network, you've seen it.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

If either go 19-0, then that.  If either go 18-1, I would say NE's.  NE 2007 set numerous records neither team is coming close to breaking those. 

[ethurst22]

Just think.

The Dolphins gave NO's a better game than the Patriots did until Sparano called that time out .

When Ginn bobbled the ball and Sharper took it out of the air and ran it in which should have been a touchback, the air came out of Miami but I do think that Miami gave NO's more of a game.


And that's whats sad about this franchise. It fold like a cheap tent in the 4th Quarter.

[Thundergod]

If either go 19-0, then that.  If either go 18-1, I would say NE's.  NE 2007 set numerous records neither team is coming close to breaking those. 

I agree.

[Pats2006]

If either go 19-0, then that.  If either go 18-1, I would say NE's.  NE 2007 set numerous records neither team is coming close to breaking those. 

2nd that

[Phishfan]

If either go 19-0, then that.  If either go 18-1, I would say NE's.  NE 2007 set numerous records neither team is coming close to breaking those. 

Apparently you have missed that New Orleans is on pace to break NE's points per game record.

[JVides]

Colts would impress me most.  They're doing it with less.  It would cement Peyton Manning's legacy as worthy of "is he the best all-time" consideration because, seriously, it's him and Reggie  Wayne out there against the world, it seems.

[fyo]

Colts would impress me most.  They're doing it with less.  It would cement Peyton Manning's legacy as worthy of "is he the best all-time" consideration because, seriously, it's him and Reggie  Wayne out there against the world, it seems.

I think "best all-time" discussion are a complete joke. The best players, with VERY few exceptions, are playing right NOW or very recently. The game has evolved immensely and there's just no way "old" players (at their prime) would be able to compete in today's NFL. The talent pool is just SO much bigger and the work these athletes put into it is far beyond anything that's even remotely comparable to other eras.

[Sunstroke]

^^^ That's always the problem with comparing players across different eras...and you're right. Humans keep getting bigger-stronger-faster-smarter, and the game reflects our own evolution.

[JVides]

^^^And yet, I'd couterpoint that players of yore transplanted to current times would benefit from the same innovations in training, nutrition, and such that they would themselves be better athletes; on par with those we have now.  I think Johnny U could dominate in today's NFL had he been born in 1980 instead of 1933.  Sure, he was only 6'1", but Drew Brees is 6'0"* and he's doing just fine.


*in his cleats, maybe.

[fyo]

And yet, I'd couterpoint that players of yore transplanted to current times would benefit from the same innovations in training, nutrition, and such that they would themselves be better athletes; on par with those we have now.

So you're saying that if e.g. Unitas had been born 20 years ago and had access to the same facilities and spent 20x as much time on football as he did, then he might be as good as the best today?

That's not a counterpoint. That's bullcrap.

We're not talking "best genes" or "most raw talent". We're talking best. B E S T. Period.

So, yeah, sure, if athletes of previous eras had done things differently, they'd be better. You could argue the same for some major busts today; if they'd only worked a bit harder, trained a bit more, eaten a bit more sensibly...

Unitas would get his ass handed to him if he were transplanted into today's NFL.

If you took Unitas at age 5 and let him spend the nineties and 00s in college and NFL, sure, he might be very good. It's always hard to know if the skill set matches todays requirements and there's no guarantee his body would be able to handle the stresses of NFL today -- nor any guarantee that he'd be willing to put in the obscene hours required to become an elite NFL player.

[JVides]

FYO, what I am saying is that athletes of yore were conditioned in the way that athletes from yore were conditioned.  Could Jesse Owens have run with Usain Bolt if he'd been raised in our environment?  I think yes.  Are you saying no?  Like humans have evolved so much in the last 60 years (now there's a steaming pile of bullcrap) that athletes from the past would have no chance against them?

Yes, our best athletes today are the product of their environment:  nutrition, medical advances, training techniques.  It has clearly made them better athletes than their predecessors.  It does not, however, make them better players, the B E S T, as you say.  If the only thing that separates Adrian Peterson from, say, Gale Sayers is today's "all-encompassing environment", then yeah, Gale Sayers could dominate in today's NFL, because he possessed all of the other tools of a great running back (elusiveness, speed, "vision", etc...)

I wonder, do you think that if we transplanted all the fat-asses our country has roaming around back to 1930, when there was no high fructose corn syrup in everything, no processed foods; do you think those fatties would lose weight due to the different food environment, or has our marvelous physical evolution come with a "40% of the population is way overweight" side-effect?

[ethurst22]

I think "best all-time" discussion are a complete joke. The best players, with VERY few exceptions, are playing right NOW or very recently. The game has evolved immensely and there's just no way "old" players (at their prime) would be able to compete in today's NFL. The talent pool is just SO much bigger and the work these athletes put into it is far beyond anything that's even remotely comparable to other eras.

Oh my God, you've got to be kidding me fyo. Todays players ARE NOT TOUGHER than the ones who made the league.

Todays players may be better conditioned but they cannot tackle and get hurt too easily. You're telling me that Adrian Peterson is better than Jim Brown when Jim Brown would run over eight people on purpose and break a 60 yarder at the same time? I've never seen so much arm tackling in my life.

The reason why wide receivers are putting up insane numbers is because of the 1978 rule change about the contact within five yards and get this. Before then, a wide receiver could get hit all over the field. Paul Warfield has a career average of 21.0 yards a catch and that's with defensive backs like Jack "The Assassin" Tatum and Mel Blount hanging all over him as he ran a pattern.

If you put Rice, Terrell Owens and Randy Moss in that era, they probably would be average. Hines Ward is a throwback that fits in perfectly in that era.

Look at the rule to protect QB's. Like Jack Lambert said when all these rule changes came out, "You might as well put them in dresses". If you look at old NFL Film highlights, QB's were hit late, clotheslined, etc. Johnny U on one play got his lip busted and all of his teeth busted out, packed his lip with mud and on the next play threw the game winning touchdown.

When Dick Butkus hit you, you went down. Jack Youngblood played in a Super Bowl with a BROKEN leg. Bob Kuechenberg inserted a steel rod in his arm with a hammer to play in Super Bowl 8 and manhandled Alan Page. Larry Wilson, the Hall of Fame safety played games with two broken hands and still blitzed the quarterback, knocked the snot out of people and made interceptions. Those guys were TOUGH!

JVides is right. Just because there are nutritional. medical advances and better training techniques, it does not make these players better than their predecessors. Nick Bounticonti couldn't lift his own weight (205) but he was a great middle linebacker and is in the Hall of Fame.

I find this strange. You average NFL running back has a shelf life of 6-7 years. The guys in the 60's and 70's played for at least 10 to 11 years and got the ball maybe 25 times a game because the NFL was a run first league.

Now these days, you need 2 running backs to accomplish what 1 did decades ago.

These guys aren't that TOUGH. The old school established the standard of football.