'74 Steelers would beat '07 Patriots???

That last sentence really shows what a genius you are. So, yeah, the guy is serious and maybe correct.

You really can't compare sizes of athletes 35 years apart--especially with the rampant HGH and PED use that wasn't as prevalent and refined as it is today.

I'll take the '78 Steelers over the Pats, though. the '74 team was one dimensional, with a great defensive and (being optimistic) a functional offense. By '78 you have arguably the best defense ever, and Bradshaw, Harris, Swann and Stallworth in their primes. I'd like to see this years' Pats full body of work (to include the post-season) before we make any GOAT comparisons.

[quote]Hahaha wrote:

]Are you really going to block Vince Wilfork with some 220 pound lineman?

Of course, the '07 Patriots would win, afterall, the '74 Steelers are all old men now.

Ah, but played in 1974 and most of the Pats weren't even fetuses.

Ben Stiller wrote:

You really can't compare sizes of athletes 35 years apart--especially with the rampant HGH and PED use that wasn't as prevalent and refined as it is today.

Why not? If the question is can the Steelers of '74 beat the Patriots of '07, then those kind of hypotheticals don't matter. Transport the '07 Patriots through time to '74. Put them on the field against the Steelers. Who wins? That's the question. If you want to ask who was better in the context of their contemporaries, then it's a different story.

PED use may not have been as prevalent or refined in the 1970s but those Steelers teams allegedly knew their way around the needle:

http://cbs.sportsline.com/nfl/story/8322840

they had an article in usa today last year where they showed the mater dei high school football teams lineman were way bigger than the miami dolphins lineman the year the dolphins went 17-0, almost all the mater dei lineman were over 300 pounds with their smallest lineman being 20 pounds bigger than the dolphins biggest lineman.

also concord de la salle in northern california always has relatively small players 210-220 pound lineman and they were undefeated for over a decade beating teams that were way bigger them in weight like mater dei and long beach poly.

Pats haven\'t done anything yet. Still lots of games to be played. They actually have to win the Super Bowl to be crowned Champions. All they have proven is that they can beat crappy teams and injured teams (Colts) in a watered down NFL.

Any of the 49er teams with Rice and Montana and/or Young would beat these Pats.

Alan

Arch Stanton wrote:

Of course, the '07 Patriots would win, afterall, the '74 Steelers are all old men now.

end of thread. we're done now

Ben Stiller wrote:

You really can't compare sizes of athletes 35 years apart--especially with the rampant HGH and PED use that wasn't as prevalent and refined as it is today.

Isn't this exactly what the writer did?

I don't think you can compare athletic fitness levels of today

with those of the 1970's. Training and"recovery" methods progress, athletes can train harder for longer.If 1974 athletes and sportspeople were equivalent to or better than those of today then records would not evolve.We'd still have

records set in 74 standing today.I hear it all the time,

xxxx would show these kids up if he was playing today, w

'78 Steelers

'84 49ers

'85 Bears

'92 Cowboys

'72 Dolphins

Not necessarily in that order. I put all of these teams ahead of the '07 Pats.

Any of the Madden video games would support me on this one. Those teams are unstoppable! Ha.

growing up in pgh, I saw some games live. and I'll be the first to admit the following: when you played the Steelers of the 70's, you either got hurt, or avoided getting hurt. They did not hit to tackle, they hit to put you out of the game! Randy moss going over the middle in the 70's with Mel Blount waiting for him? Let's put it this way - after one time, Moss would be looking around while the ball was in the air, and would not be so sure-handed. And Brady? Transporting back to the 70's, we did not worry about protecting the QB as much as today - just ask Bradshaw. No "roughing the passer" penalties back then.

If they played today Patriots would win. Played in the 70's, it would be a WHOLE new world for the young puppies when they experienced Joe Greene's head slap after every snap and Lambert's spitting while you were down on the ground .

Phaedrus wrote:

Ben Stiller wrote:

You really can't compare sizes of athletes 35 years apart--especially with the rampant HGH and PED use that wasn't as prevalent and refined as it is today.

Why not? If the question is can the Steelers of '74 beat the Patriots of '07, then those kind of hypotheticals don't matter. Transport the '07 Patriots through time to '74. Put them on the field against the Steelers. Who wins? That's the question. If you want to ask who was better in the context of their contemporaries, then it's a different story.

If you want to ask who was better in the context of their contemporaries, then it's a different story.

An intelligent and dead-on response.

I think the Dolphins might have another perfect season, 0-16.

The writer didn't do anything except say that going undefeated doesn't necessarly make a team the best of all-time. And that's true. Most serious football fans wouldn't rate the '72 Dolphins as the GOAT, as they had a rather weak schedule (only played 2 playoff teams I think) and weren't particularly dominant in their wins. That distinction usually goes to the '85 Bears.

But the writer doesn't go beyond his blanket statement (16-0 does not equal best ever) and give any good reasons why the Pats wouldn't be the best ever, aside from his homerisms about how the '74 Steelers would "squish" them. Not entirely convincing.

IF (and admittedly that's a big "if") the Pats go 19-0, it will be hard to argue against them being the best ever. Already this season they have beaten; last year's Super Bowl champs (who weren't that injured...just ask Brady what it's like to play with a truly depleted team) and arguably the best team in the NFC. By the end of the regular season, they will likely have beaten 6 or 7 playoff teams, and look like they're going to break a lot of offensive records in the process. If greatness is to be measured by dominating the best the NFL can throw at you, the '07 Pats are tough to top...even by the '85 Bears.

Now, the writer takes a hypothetical (two teams from different eras playing each other) and declares the Steelers better, presumably because they hit harder or had more HOFers. Well, I think the hard hitting would be handled reasonably well by a Pats team that is significantly bigger. And its not as though the Pats are a finesse team....just watch Welker catch a ball between the hashmarks. And in terms of who has the most HOFers...that's just a stupid way to measure a team, particularly when you're comparing one team from before the salary cap era to one team from the cap era.

Anyways, no one likes a dominant team - especially if they're from Pittsburgh and the dominant team is not the Steelers. So crap like that author wrote is expected....but it just comes off as some insecure fan who feel that his team's place in history is being threatened.

The '48 Browns would slap any other team in history all over the place... leather helmets and all

Well the 07 Philadelphia Eagles should have beat them, but let em' off the hook!

Dirt wrote:

Well the 07 Philadelphia Eagles should have beat them, but let em' off the hook!

But still, the Pats were who they thought they were.