SF 49ers were an exceptional team and I was a big fan. The Miami Dolphins may have had the Greatest Team of all time.

The 49ers went to 5 SBs and won all 5, four of them in convincing fashion. In the playoffs, they had to face Tom Landry's Cowboys, Joe Gibbs' Redskins, Bill Parcell's Giants, the Chicago Bears, Jimmy Johnson's Cowboys, and finally, Brett Favre's Packers. Hall of Fame coaches and players.

What HOF coaches/players have the Pats faced?

from the NFL. You can not use that comparison because for now it doesn't exist.

Peyton Manning
Tony Dungee (already in)
Dick Vermel (on the list)
Kurt Warner


That's about it.

In:
Marvin Harrison
Tim Brown (Snow Job game)
Jerry Rice (Same)

Gimmes:
Roethlisburger
Eli

Probably:
Tom Coughlin
Pete Carroll
Bill Cowher
Marshawn Lynch
A number of dudes from the LoB and LB corps of Seattle like Waggoner
Hines Ward

Maybes:
James Harrison
Edgerrin James
Antonio Brown
Leveon Bell

Probably some others I'm forgetting. Not pimping the Pats but not taking away from what they've done either.

49'ers had no salary cap during a bunch of those great years and I don't think any team was EVER so blessed to go from a guy like Montana to a guy like Young directly after, save maybe the Packers. Also Pat's have had very few truly great WR's, whereas Montana and Young had literally THE GOAT for a good chunk of that tenure.

I wouldn't brag too much about facing them.

The '81 Cowboys were a far cry from the dominant '70 team that won 2 SB.

They did get caught cheating on the cap in 2000 and there were plenty of rumors (unconfirmed) that 2000 wasn't the only time they were doing that after the cap was introduced.

Those teams were better than anyone the 49ers beat.

Teams like the Bears, Giants, Redskins, Cowboys. All of those teams won Superbowls during that time.

All of those teams won SB's since 2001.

Only the Steelers won more than one on your list.

superbowls. You can certainly argue that the teams were objectively better, but your argument about those teams winning multiple superbowls is based on the premise that they were BETTER than the 49ers in multiple years. The irony is that you're using this as a justification as to why the 49ers were better than the Patriots.

Exactly. My point is that if the level of competition that the Pats faced were the same as the level that the 49ers faced, then their dynasty would be better. For example, the 49ers had to overcome 4 HOF coaches, Landry, Gibbs, Parcells, and Jimmy Johnson just to get to the Superbowl. The Pats had to face Dungy?, Tomlin?, Reid?, Harbuagh? Those coaches are not in the same class as the 49er opponent coaches.

You are suggesting that those teams were better because they won multiple SB's, which they were able to do because they were able to GET to multiple SB's. They were able to get to multiple SB's because they were able to get past the 49ers. You are suggesting that this is evidence that they are better teams, but it could also be evidence that the 49ers weren't as good as you think they were. The 49ers had some great teams, and had a great run, no doubt, but listing HOF coaches doesn't mean they were necessarily better than active coaches, since they don't put active coaches in the HOF. Great coaches don't always have great teams, either. Out of curiosity, when did Jimmy Johnson get into the HOF? I looked it up and could only find this guy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Johnson_(cornerback)

This is the dilemma with trying to compare teams from different eras, because you can only really compare them against their contemporaries. Even when comparing stats, they are just stats accumulated against their contemporaries. Every year players get bigger, stronger and faster. The 72 dolphins would have gotten smoked by this years Cleveland Browns, and 20 years from now, the Patriots likely wouldn't stand a chance against the worst team in the NFL.

I am using the level of coaching of that era to the level of coaching in the Pats era. The overall quality of teams and coaches of the 49ers era was much higher than that of the Pats era. Winning 5 SBs when the competition was better is more impressive than winning 8 SBs when the quality was much lower.

Last edited Tue Jan 23, 2018, 12:54 AM - Edit history (1)

The overall quality of the teams can't be determined by how well they played against each other. That's what I'm saying.

The 49ers were better because the teams they played were better? How do you determine that the teams they played were better? Is it because they were good enough to sometimes beat the 49ers? That's a circular argument.

The coaches were better back then? Yes, there were some great coaches back then. Here's their winning percentages...

Mike Shanahan: .552
Jimmy Johnson: .556 (not an NFL HOF coach)
Bill Parcells: .569
John Harbaugh: .588
Andy Reid: .604
Tom Landry: .607
Joe Gibbs: .621
Bill Cowher: .623
Mike Tomlin: .659
Tony Dungy: .668

Dungy and Tomlin look like the best two of the bunch, but again, this is all based on their performance against contemporaries, so using this measurement has the same problem.

If you really wanted to say that one team was better, maybe you might argue that the 49ers teams of the 80's wouldn't even exist now, since after the first few years, as their players became more successful, the salary cap that was instituted in the 90's might have made those teams a financial impossibility. Of course, if you wanted to argue that, I could always argue that the Patriots did what they did in the age of the salary cap where it was much harder to retain the talent you developed.

You're not necessarily wrong that teams back then were better, but you haven't really done anything to support that argument. Given that active coaches don't go into the hall of fame, you won't know how many HOF coaches the Pats played against for many years to come.

Jimmy Johnson: 2 Superbowl wins
Bill Parcells: 2 Superbowl wins and another SB appearance with a different team
Tom Landry: 2 Superbowl wins and two additiona SB appearances
Joe Gibbs: 3 Superbowl wins and another SB appearance

Mike Tomlin: 1 Superbowl win and another SB appearance
Tony Dungy: 1 Superbowl win
John Harbaugh: 1 Superbowl appearance

Coaches in the 49ers era: 7 Superbowl wins and 4 additional appearances
Coaches in the Pats era: 3 Superbowl wins and one appearance

The 49ers won 5 Superbowls in that same era, so the idea that they weren't as good as those team is absurd. They were clearly the best overall team from 1981 to 1998, and they did it by beating coaches that won multiple Superbowls themselves.

The Patriots have won 5 Superbowls in their era and appeared in 3 additional ones. They may win one more Superbowl than the 49ers, but their competition is inferior.

by the way, Harbaugh won his SB (you listed it as an appearance), but you got the math right on that, so I figured it's just a type-o. Tom Landry won 2 superbowls, but neither was in the 80's or 90's. Mike Shanahan won 2 SB's in the late 90's but continued to coach until 2013 (with the Broncos until 2008) and had some pretty good teams there. If Landry's SB's count, why wouldn't Shanahans? Dick Vermeil won a SB in 1999 with the Rams and went on to coach KC for several years after that. Bill Cowher won a SB in 2005 and coached until 2006.

All of this misses the point. None of this demonstrates that their competition is inferior. What these numbers show is that the Patriots have been more consistently dominant over their competition than the 49ers were over theirs, certainly within their conference. There's no objective way to show that teams from one era were better or worse than teams from another era. All your numbers show is that the 80's & 90's 49ers weren't as dominate as the 00' & 10' Patriots. If the Patriots didn't go to 8 SB's, it's likely their competition may have a few more wins. You can argue that means the 49ers competition was better, but I can argue that means the 49ers weren't as good.

At this point, they've both won 5 Superbowls during a 17 year run. The 49ers were equally as dominate against much better competition.

over that same span. You can argue that 49ers did it against much better competition, but there's no way to actually prove it. All you can really say with certainty is that they both won the same number of SB's over that span, and when they didn't win, SF came up "shorter" than New England (not by much, though). None of this proves that the Pats were more or less dominant than the 49ers, but your "tiebreaker" is the quality of the competition, which is subjective.

There is really no comparison. Brady would dominate a defense from the 80's.

As to the impressiveness of the dynasties, like others have said it is debatable. Doesn't change the fact that Brady is the GOAT.

Rules of the game have changed so much that you cannot compare eras directly.

The Patriots continue down their yellow brick road. Can’t do a post-mortem on their best 17 years yet.

The Patriots are the defending Super Bowl champs. And are AFC champs going to another. 49s, bright future

worthy as perhaps the most dominating in NFL history. SF had really good teams as well and #2 on the list and #3 would be the Steelers

I have always been Cowboys Fan

From my viewpoint, the best dynasty teams were

70's Steelers
80's 49ers

90's Cowboys were a great team, first and second went to Steelers and 49ers

Free Agency changed things a lot.
Change of rules to favor offense also.

I really don't know if 49ers or Steelers were better. How is that even a real question?

If the measuring stick is SuperBowl wins, it is hard to not consider Patriots the best. Time will tell.

Comparing teams from the past to teams today is just too subjective. The game changes. The steroid use changes. Free agency changed.

Old joke about everyone having an opinion and they all stink. Who knows which team was more impressive?

Those early 90s cowbow teams were the best NFL teams I've ever seen. Aikman, Smith,Irvin,ect.

But, I am biased. Watching the Cowboys move from the league's basement to the 90's dynasty was a beautiful thing.

It just isn’t. 5 rings, 8 appearances in the Super Bowl, 12 AFC championship games in 15 years, division titles, consecutive years with double digit wins and all, with little exception, with a constantly changing cast of no names and castoffs outside of the superstar QB.

That 49ers team was stacked with stars and hall of famers in an era where teams stayed together their whole careers.

To try and dismiss this dynasty is ludicrous. We’ve never seen anything like this and probably never will again.

My guys are taking the “Evil Empire” on in two weeks and have a decent chance of putting a stop to this madness. And if they do it still doesn’t tarnish the legacy of the Pats, probably the greatest dynasty since the mid 80’s-early 90’s Edmonton Oilers who won five Cups in seven years.

- From the first Pat's win over the Rams, I've thought they got away with murder, uncalled penalties. Mugged the Rams receivers.

- Lots of respect for coaching and especially player selection and draft management.

- Niners great teams will always be more cool... Joe Cool.

The Patriots Are The NFL’s Greatest Dynasty

The numbers are self-evident: Win or lose Sunday night, Bill Belichick and the New England Patriots have put together one of the best runs in NFL history. Since 2001, the team has made seven Super Bowl appearances, with four wins (and another possible this week), and it has achieved a level of sustained success unheard of in the modern NFL. Exactly where does this stretch rank among football dynasties, though? Well, it depends on how you define dynasty.

Do two titles in three years qualify as a dynasty? What about three in five? The end points for runs of dominance have always been up for debate. So rather than pick one definition and stick to it, we went looking for the best team over any number of years.1 The table below shows the top teams over a given period — from the best one-year teams, to the best team over a quarter-century, based on FiveThirtyEight’s Elo ratings:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-patriots-are-the-nfls-greatest-dynasty/

Arguing that a team like the Patriots who have been caught cheating on multiple occasions, have effectively employed a blatant fraud (Alex Guerrero knows less about medicine than my cat does, if he's helping Brady and others it's giving them HGH or some other as of yet untestable drug).

It's like arguing Lance Armstrong is the greatest cyclist or that Barry Bonds is the greatest home run hitter. The fact that you know they cheated makes their accomplishments meaningless. And given that Belichick was bad in Cleveland with a team that not only was a regular playoff team before he was there, but also won a Super Bowl a few years later (after moving to Baltimore), and Brady was a bad quarterback in college, and highly competitive people who have already been found to cheat, it defies logic to assume they aren't doing more than they've been caught at already.