With the 2009 season halfway complete, it's a little premature to discuss the team of the decade. That doesn't stop the New York Times' excellent Fifth Down blog from posing the question. Or me from answering it.
When football fans think of the dominant teams of the 1960s (Green Bay Packers, 5 titles), 1970s (Steelers, 4), 1980s (San Francisco 49ers, 4) and 1990s (Dallas Cowboys, 3), a team instantly comes to mind.
This decade makes us stop and think. The NYT headline, and all of the comments, contain the argument to the New England Patriots (3 titles), Pittsburgh Steelers (2) and Indianapolis Colts (1). If the Patriots win this year's Super Bowl, it won't even be a debate. If the Steelers or Colts win, it gets tricky.
In this thought exercise, we demand both quantity and quality. Sorry, NFC.
We clearly value sustained success. Nobody makes a case for the New York Giants, who have more Super Bowl appearances (2) and as many titles (1) as the Colts. The reason? The Giants have four non-winning seasons this decade.
We clearly value the pinnacle of success. Nobody makes a case for the Philadelphia Eagles, who have as many conference championship appearances (5) as the Patriots, and more than the Steelers (4) and Colts (2). The reason? The Eagles haven't won any Super Bowls this decade.
At this point, I lean toward the Patriots, who notably have a 2-0 record against the Steelers and a 2-1 record against the Colts in the playoffs this decade. It certainly doesn't hurt to have an undefeated regular season on your resume.
Nota bene: The Patriots (16-0 in 2007), Steelers (15-1 in 2004) and Colts (14-2 in 2005) did not win the Super Bowl in their "best" regular seasons.
No comments:
Post a Comment