Top Ten teams thus far this (now 1/4 way thru) 21st Century?

[Brian wolf]

Some good views and team breakdowns ... The 2017 Eagles had a great year but with what happened to Wentz and Pederson, they seemed more like a fluke to me. Foles came in and won the SB without Malcolm Butler for NE playing, but couldnt even take the job from Wentz, who got worse as a player. At least the 2024 Eagles had many players from a strong 2022 team, though I dont feel they were as strong as the 2004 or 2002 Eagles teams that were coached by Reid/Johnson that couldnt go all the way. Its very close to me ...

Yeah, the 2001 Rams deserve a spot in the top 10 if not top 5. If the 2013 Seahawks had any weaknesses, it was a good but not great offensive line, and role playing receivers, similar to the 2004 Patriots. The receivers seemed to be better improvising off of Wilson's scrambling than pre-snap play routes, which cost them in the following SB against NE, whose DBs--including former Seahawk, Brandon Browner--played that last Seattle pass of the game better than the receivers did.

The 2006 Chargers were very strong but let the Patriots off the hook by fumbling an interception that would have sealed the playoff game. They might have beaten the Colts, who they beat with weaker teams in 2007 and 08.

[74_75_78_79_]

Some good views and team breakdowns ... The 2017 Eagles had a great year but with what happened to Wentz and Pederson, they seemed more like a fluke to me. Foles came in and won the SB without Malcolm Butler for NE playing, but couldnt even take the job from Wentz, who got worse as a player. At least the 2024 Eagles had many players from a strong 2022 team, though I dont feel they were as strong as the 2004 or 2002 Eagles teams that were coached by Reid/Johnson that couldnt go all the way. Its very close to me ...

Yeah, the 2001 Rams deserve a spot in the top 10 if not top 5. If the 2013 Seahawks had any weaknesses, it was a good but not great offensive line, and role playing receivers, similar to the 2004 Patriots. The receivers seemed to be better improvising off of Wilson's scrambling than pre-snap play routes, which cost them in the following SB against NE, whose DBs--including former Seahawk, Brandon Browner--played that last Seattle pass of the game better than the receivers did.

The 2006 Chargers were very strong but let the Patriots off the hook by fumbling an interception that would have sealed the playoff game. They might have beaten the Colts, who they beat with weaker teams in 2007 and 08.

The 2006 Chargers, and the 2006 Ravens who beat SD earlier that season. It's very difficult for me, though, to include a team that didn't even make the CCG, fair or not (perhaps fair, unfortunately). Chargers did have their way with Indy in the playoffs that decade. Nice-enough chance they get past them and then take advantage of Grossman for all the marbles. Or, sadly, would they have found a way to lose one of those two games anyway? In either event, you got to be able to get past those championship-caliber teams whose forte is winning close high-stakes games; and they couldn't get it done at home vs those Pats in the divisional round.

And with the way the Colts slid into the playoffs, and beating KC in an ugly defensive struggle with Peyton now sleep-walking, you'd think poor them would have been walking into a sawmill vs Ray Lewis & Co - a team that seemingly had a stronger regular season than Esteemed '00! But not to be. With #18 still asleep - and also would be the first half the following week - it was...the "finesse"/bad run-defense Colts who were actually the smash-mouth bad-asses once again in that loud, hostile Purple & Black environment! Yes, sadly, critics of Billick weren't quieted in the aftermath. Again, you got to at least make it to the CCG! The '07 Pats are, pretty much, the only team this Century that could have "gotten away" with still being on my list had they actually lost in the divisional round.

It's nice that Peyton got at least one non-2015-("passenger")-Ring in his career, but that '06 installment really doesn't do it for me as far as making this Top Ten is concerned. It's nice that Indy's D finally became what you always would have expected a Dungy D to be in that 11th hour of '06, but still. I really don't want to give Grossman less credit, but a simple Cutler (or even Dilfer) at QB and '15 is all Peyton's got! Are the 2006 Bears, with a SB-win, on this list even with Grossman at QB, and he not playing a good game a la Big Ben the year prior? They had Lovie, the D, the run game, and...Devin Hester!

'05 and '08 Steelers don't make the Top Ten with me either nor HM at all. Deserving Champs of those very seasons end-of-the-day with me, but I've already opined why they aren't "All-Time" Historic as the case with those Obvious installments of theirs from three decades prior.

Same with either Giant team though, a la Gene Tunney over Dempsey twice, they beat the Pats! And that 2008 installment that finished top-seed in 2008? Yes, they beat my Steelers in the 'Burgh. But I forgot just until now they, a la '80 Eagles, started 11-1 and then finished 12-4 (winning the penultimate game just as they did)! And then they lose, again, at home to the Eagles just as they did in that very game that dropped them to 11-2. At least the '80 Eagles, even after being down for a bit at home to 9-7 Minny in the divisional, shook it off and made it to the SB! So as for the '08 G-men, fair or not...

The 2000 Ravens. I guess I still give them (at least "relative") historic gruff. Yes, the TD-drought and their D not playing against better QBs. And Trent Dilfer who though I say should get more credit once he took over that can't be measured in stats (even if its just simple...leadership that did the trick), I still catch myself going with the herd from time to time as the case with my "or even Dilfer" comment two paragraphs ago. It's not like they "only" had a defense! They had a run-game, had Shannon Sharpe, had great special teams, and - again - Dilfer taking over when he did shouldn't be overlooked.

if I declare the 1963 Chicago Bears as the '3rd-best' team of the entire 1960s (behind just the '62 & '66 Packers), then why don't I give those '00 Ravens more kudos within this very Century? And, mind you, it says more to have won-it-all in 2000 than in the years that would follow. It seems that Bears team was "just" defense unlike what I just said of Baltimore! And, indeed, it really does say a lot being that they still swept a Packers team that was championship-caliber on both sides of the ball. And beating Sherman & YA's Giants, even if by just 4 pts (forcing Tittle to throw 5 INTs), should be seen as a greater accomplishment than those Ravens beating that Giants team 27 years later if however decisively despite, yes, NYG having that Strahan-led defense that's forever overlooked only because Baltimore, and Tennessee's, defense were each simply even-better.

Yes, maybe that 2000 World Champ (with the '90s as fresh as can possibly be) should be given more credit from Yours Truly.

Concluding with the team that just won-it-all...Eagles beating Dynastic KC as decisively as they did makes ALL the difference as far as Historic rep with me is concerned. Had they won by just a little, then of course they deserve to be on this list even if not quite at #2! But an amazing accomplishment that still would have been being that KC was big on winning those close important games. And had Philly just barely lost...sadly, they're not even in the running for HM. So, YES, Great accomplishment these Eagles made which places them IMHO at...#2 so far this Century! Beast Mode & Legion even-better than Saquon and whatever the nickname of this Eagles' D is (and they DO deserve a nickname) respectively.

It's always very difficult to predict if a new Champ will do it again the following year or not. But this team, unlike their "lightning-in-bottle' rep from seven years ago, reeks of a team that'll stay fired-up and, indeed, repeat! Perhaps a "boring" scenario being that anyone outside KC would want someone else to be there, but my early SB prediction for next year is this...Eagles KILL IT in their conference! Chiefs, even if however barely, hold off the rest of the AFC, there's indeed a "rubber-band" match; but Eagles SQUASH them again a la Dallas Buffalo '92/'93. But Buffalo didn't play against Big D hence beat them in a SB just prior! Maybe, instead, it can be compared to Liston knocking out Patterson in the 1st Rd to win the Title and then doing it again in their next match.


PS - I still haven't brought up/opined how World Champs from the previous Century would have fared against some of these very top ones from the 21st. Yes, I already said that this current Eagles team would top the '81 Forty Niners. And, of course, I do respect that team! 13-3, sweep both Dallas & Cincy (one lopsided win per)...yes, enough said. But that Saquon vs Ricky Patton makes ALL the difference in this battle of rookie secondaries! Yes, Montana/Hurts and Walsh/Sirianni, but still. Eagles win, IMHO.

Leaving out the obvious "weak" World Champs at least in the opinion of most (I won't even mention them), I'll bring up those that are a level up or so. Yes, that first SF champ would have trouble with my 21stC 'Rushmore' which, again, are the '13 Hawks, '24 Birds, '04 & '07 Pats. Do I have '04 above '07 because they actually WON it, or do I simply feel that despite how 'boring' they are, it's that exact disgusting 'boring'-ness (BALANCE) in them that would have been able to fend of that upset to 10-6 Giants instead?? I think I once saw '03 & '04 Pats as 'twins'. And perhaps, Wolf, you are right to mention '03 NE on this thread. But though I may be wrong to have not mentioned '03 yet, I think it may not be a bad idea to NOT 'twin' the two. The very simple COREY DILLON coming along ought to make the difference! Yes, they lost to the Steelers that late October in '04. But I think much of it was a product of the 'bubble' (streak) being about to burst. And, yes, give '03 much of the credit for that bubble in the first place. But '04 still seems nastier/stronger! The '03 Pats, to me, are a two-loss version of the '72 Dolphins. But '04 a bit better!

Not just the '81 Forty Niners, but the '87 Redskins, would have to worry a bit about having to play against those four future champs. '64 Browns? Yeah, they too along with the '56 Giants (unless they're at home, wearing sneakers). Hate saying this...but the 1960 Eagles also need to worry, Concrete Charlie notwithstanding.

How about who I recently opined being the '#9' and '#10' team of the 1990s - the '95 Cowboys and '99 Rams respectively? Both likely would handle them! Yes, Switzer's installment who took advantage of Neil O reeked of the weakest-link of the Dynasty. Yes, the offense took the rest of the day off before halftime of SBXXX, and they were a bit sloppy all along with the key example they losing decisively at home to San Fran with Grbac at QB instead of Young, and Deion now being with them. SF losing that finale by popular opinion did help. But the '95 Cowboys still had the goods and there never is a guarantee that SF beats them in a hypo-NFCCG anyway. They still had all that talent! And Switzer knew enough what he was doing! I give them a pass over those future four.

And, you know what? Same with the '99 Rams! A forevermore underrated defense who's 'Moment of Truth' was against Tampa Bay in that NFCCG when the 'Greatest Show' actually took the day off of ALL days (yes, of course, that Dungy D helped keep them..."off")! They were more smash-mouth than you think! Under...Vermeil , mind you, they taking on two smash-mouth teams in the NFCCG and the SB respectively! They were tough!!

Yes, tough games/scenarios, but I'd give '95 Boys & '99 Rams the edge over any of them!

After that? Even better teams would have been given a lot of grief by those four as well.

[Brian wolf]

Haha ... for now I will stick with the 21st century. Youre right, 74-79, the 2006 Chargers probably needed to get to the AFC Championship game but they did lose to the Patriots, who were a dynasty until 2008, when Brady got hurt. Maybe they win it all had they beaten NE, and both Marty and Rivers make the HOF but instead, they are now waiting(We will debate Rivers shortly)

Though the passing game rules in today's NFL, the Colts with Manning, had one of the greatest passing attacks ever, during the still-running the ball-relevent early 2000s. Their offense was a juggernaut during the 2003 postseason and 2004 regular season but a great Patriots defense shut them down. Had the Patriots squashed the Panthers in the 2003/04 SB rather than let them come back, that team would have gotten more recognition.

The Colts from 2003-2010 rattled off 12 wins or more seasons, too easily but only won it all in 2006. These postseason losses hurt Manning in challenging Brady for ultimate GOAT status, though his teams werent as strong or balanced. Even going to the Broncos, those 2012-2014 teams had great offenses but the defense gave Manning his last championship.

[rhickok1109]

Though the passing game rules in today's NFL, the Colts with Manning, had one of the greatest passing attacks ever, during the still-running the ball-relevent early 2000s.

In 2000, the average NFL team passed 32.9 times and ran the ball 27.6 times per game.

In 2024, the average NFL team passed 32.7 and ran the ball 27.0 times per game.

[Brian wolf]

Thanks, Ralph ... I didnt know that. I guess no matter what decade, certain teams will boost the running numbers as a whole. Offensive balance should always be the goal.