I probably have the Raiders ranked too low while, maybe, having the '79 Steelers too high.
Maybe I should have Oakland at #3. The blemish(es) of that '76 Raider team that can anchor them from being even higher up on an 'all-time' list is their one loss being a blowout at New England; and then in the rematch at home in the divisional round, they win by a controversial play - and then Franco & Rocky not playing the following week doesn't help though, as I said before a few times, I a Steeler-fan doesn't put it in stone that Pittsburgh automatically wins had both RBs played. I consider it a 50/50 chance in such a hypothetical.
'79 Steelers? I guess I should mix in those two eggs they laid at Cincy & SD when factoring them as a whole. At their very best, they were better than they were in '78; had more 'bite'. But they were
not at their best all season long. '78 only lost two games with neither one being lopsided and whereas they beat Houston lopsided in the AFCCG and were up on Big D, 35-17, late in SBXIII, the '79 version didn't win their division until the final week and in the playoffs they won close against Houston and the Rams. But then I still keep looking at their Wk#8-thru-#11 performance which I think could very well be the most compact/dominant stretch of that Dynasty! Of course da '85 Bears should be ahead of the '79 Steelers on an 'all-time' list. But in a highest-stakes-possible game between the two, I like Terry's chances to make the difference with that key long bomb play, or two, to either Swann, Stallworth, or both!
I used to think that the '78 Cowboys may have been better than they were the year before. But now I see them as beneath them even if still by a little. Perhaps once that 6-4 start, that prompted THIS article -
https://vault.si.com/vault/1978/11/13/i ... e-playoffs - was out of the way, they very well may have been better than they ever were in '77. But they DID lose those four games as opposed to just two the season before, '77 had the #1 offense and #1 defense, and they WON their Super Bowl and did so decisively, so they get the nod over '78 just like '92/'93 should get the nod over '94.
I hate putting the Rams at #20. Once that 5-6 start was out the way, that Ferragamo/Tyler squad may be better/more-dynamic than the Rams ever were the entire decade! But six losses going into a meaningless finale is still six losses going into a meaningless finale. Which then leads back to me, perhaps, placing the very team who beat them in SBXIV a few spots lower because of those four defeats, two of them convincers.
Yes, I treat the '75 Steelers as a one-loss team. I think they are the best team of the modern era. Just imagine if their special teams was just a bit better? Just imagine if their special teams was MORE THAN just a bit better?? I haven't said it yet, but comparing both "for their era, adjusting inflation", I may have to place the
1941 Chicago Bears as better than them. I just may. But that, IMHO, would be the
only team in the history of the pro game that I'd place over the '75 Steelers. At the very least, they're tied for first. That, or...da Bears being better.