^Thanks for the offer, but I gave up drinking long ago!^
This thread really is a mess.
We're not talking about Super Bowls.
The OP asks to be "educated" on the top 3 defenses ever, and Atlanta gets mentioned and the Vikings do not. Idiotic!
It's like saying Roger Maris was a better HR hitter than Babe Ruth.
The Atlanta Falcons were not "awesome" for a single season at all. The best I would go with is above average, maybe very good, but never "great", certainly not "greatest ever".
If you bothered to read my post, you will see that while the Falcons did in fact allow less points in a season than the Vikings, or anyone else, that does not make them a better defense. Hence my sarcastic (but accurate) reference to beating the Little Sisters of the Poor.
It's not even close.
Let's move on to a couple of great defensive teams both for a single season and a long period of dominance, since one year can certainly (as proven) be a complete fluke.
1976 Steelers; allowed 138 points and their opponents were expected to score 263. 8.9 points a game less than they "should" have. Very close to the Vikings, but not quite as good. They sure finished the regular season strong! You can't ignore the slow start, giving up 30 or more points twice.
No one here seems to realize the 1986 Bears were better than the '85 defense, so fine, we'll look at 1985;
1985 Bears; allowed 198 points in 16 games and "should" have given up 336, 8,625 points less per game than expected.
These teams, along with the Vikings, (and several other teams) were much better than the Falcons, and are probably the three I would mention in response to the OP's question.
I did not look at the Ravens, Rams, Cowboys or some of the other defenses that were also better than the Falcons.
In addition, all three of these teams had a great run of top defensive teams. Vikings 8 out of 9 years , Steelers 6 out of 8 years , and Bears 8 out of 10 years in the top 5 points allowed per game.
Atlanta......................hardly.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@thisistheshow said:
I had never read about the 77 Falcons defense before. They were a "one hit wonder" . Interesting. Here's an article that compares them to some of the best.
@JoeBanzai said:
The thread was "NFL's top three defenses ever".
We end up debating if the 1977 Falcons belong on the list. Ridiculous.
I don't see it as a one year fluke, or even a one year we played really good against bad offenses, or one year we came up with a new defense that worked for that one year.
Answer this; Were they one of the best defenses ever?
If you mean were they one of the three best defenses ever, then no, I don't think they were. But the one's that I would put in the top 3, including (as I said) the Vikings, had already been mentioned so I threw out the 1977 Falcons as a team worth considering.
In the end, I'm disagreeing with both you and with Historicalwood; you took the position that the 1977 Falcons defense wasn't even good and HW that they were the greatest ever. While I disagree with you both, I am a whole lot closer to agreeing with HW than with you. The 1977 Falcons defense was one of the best defenses ever, even if they weren't in the top 3.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Some people have given me two choices, but no one has yet to give me their three choices as the 3 best defenses ever. I guess because it’s too close to call.
In other words if someone asked who were the three best third basemen all time I would expect people to respond with a list including Beltre, Jones, Brett, Schmidt, Robinson, Matthews, Nolan A.
But no one here has given me a serious list of three yet.
Seems like it’s too tough to come up with the three best, and that’s ok.
@thisistheshow said:
I had never read about the 77 Falcons defense before. They were a "one hit wonder" . Interesting. Here's an article that compares them to some of the best.
@JoeBanzai said:
The thread was "NFL's top three defenses ever".
We end up debating if the 1977 Falcons belong on the list. Ridiculous.
I don't see it as a one year fluke, or even a one year we played really good against bad offenses, or one year we came up with a new defense that worked for that one year.
Answer this; Were they one of the best defenses ever?
If you mean were they one of the three best defenses ever, then no, I don't think they were. But the one's that I would put in the top 3, including (as I said) the Vikings, had already been mentioned so I threw out the 1977 Falcons as a team worth considering.
In the end, I'm disagreeing with both you and with Historicalwood; you took the position that the 1977 Falcons defense wasn't even good and HW that they were the greatest ever. While I disagree with you both, I am a whole lot closer to agreeing with HW than with you. The 1977 Falcons defense was one of the best defenses ever, even if they weren't in the top 3.
I did modify my answer somewhat, saying for that one season they were in the pretty good to very good range.
The OP's question, to me, was all time great defenses, not single season, and even single season Atlanta wasn't in the top three.
They were not great, to be great you have to compete against greatness.
I would like to see where that season against those offenses ranks among the easiest of all the "great" defensive years.
I could do it, but am not going to waste the time finding out something I already know.
Care to take a shot at it dallas?
See if you can find a team that held their opponents to less than 1/2 their expected points for an entire season.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
I did modify my answer somewhat, saying for that one season they were in the pretty good to very good range.
The OP's question, to me, was all time great defenses, not single season, and even single season Atlanta wasn't in the top three.
They were not great, to be great you have to compete against greatness.
Since the word "great" is undefined there's no point debating that point any further. It's the word I use to describe them, but that doesn't mean you have to.
But the second part of your sentence is incorrect. A team, a defense, a player, a whatever, is as good/great as they are, nothing more, nothing less. Who they play is outside of their control, and does not affect in any way how good/great they are. Atlanta set an NFL record for fewest points allowed in a season; that is in part because they were good/great and in part because their opposition was weak. To assume that it was entirely because of weak opposition is the quick, easy, and lazy way to resolve the issue, but clearly it was some of both. How much? I have no idea, you have no idea, none of God's chillun has any idea. I'm not even sure how to go about figuring it out, and since I don't actually care, I don't think it's going to happen.
I would like to see where that season against those offenses ranks among the easiest of all the "great" defensive years.
I could do it, but am not going to waste the time finding out something I already know.
Care to take a shot at it dallas?
See if you can find a team that held their opponents to less than 1/2 their expected points for an entire season.
There's only a handful of candidates so I could do that, but it's easy enough that I'll leave it to someone else. The Falcons came really close (45% less), and I suspect that they're in the top 10 of all time using that measure. I am having difficulty reconciling your use of this standard, though, and your reluctance to use the word "great" to describe the Falcons defense. I would be very surprised to find out they were not in the top 1/2 of 1% on this, or any other, measure of defensive greatness. If being even that high isn't enough to merit "great", then I'm sorry to tell you that Fran Tarkenton wasn't "great" either.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@Goldenage said:
Some people have given me two choices, but no one has yet to give me their three choices as the 3 best defenses ever. I guess because it’s too close to call.
In other words if someone asked who were the three best third basemen all time I would expect people to respond with a list including Beltre, Jones, Brett, Schmidt, Robinson, Matthews, Nolan A.
But no one here has given me a serious list of three yet.
Seems like it’s too tough to come up with the three best, and that’s ok.
In Super Bowl terms......85 bears, 86 Giants and 75 Steelers. That's 3
Since the word "great" is undefined there's no point debating that point any further. It's the word I use to describe them, but that doesn't mean you have to.
But the second part of your sentence is incorrect. A team, a defense, a player, a whatever, is as good/great as they are, nothing more, nothing less. Who they play is outside of their control, and does not affect in any way how good/great they are. Atlanta set an NFL record for fewest points allowed in a season; that is in part because they were good/great and in part because their opposition was weak. To assume that it was entirely because of weak opposition is the quick, easy, and lazy way to resolve the issue, but clearly it was some of both. How much? I have no idea, you have no idea, none of God's chillun has any idea. I'm not even sure how to go about figuring it out, and since I don't actually care, I don't think it's going to happen.
I had a buddy who was a pretty good basketball player when I was in High School. Basketball has never been my sport. He beat me every time we played one-on-one, sometimes spotting me several points.
That doesn't make him great. He was pretty good though, when I saw him play in a couple of league games, he wasn't nearly as "great".
Secondly, it's pretty funny to me how when discussing baseball hitters you don't like, you bring up things like "they sat out against tough pitchers" and in this case, when Atlanta played 3 good teams in the entire year, you don't "deduct" for that. Aren't you the guy who says "Jim Rice sucks" over and over again?
"Greatness" is not achieved by dominating the worst, (for the most part) lowest scoring teams in the history of modern football.
I would like to see where that season against those offenses ranks among the easiest of all the "great" defensive years.
I could do it, but am not going to waste the time finding out something I already know.
Care to take a shot at it dallas?
See if you can find a team that held their opponents to less than 1/2 their expected points for an entire season.
There's only a handful of candidates so I could do that, but it's easy enough that I'll leave it to someone else. The Falcons came really close (45% less), and I suspect that they're in the top 10 of all time using that measure. I am having difficulty reconciling your use of this standard, though, and your reluctance to use the word "great" to describe the Falcons defense. I would be very surprised to find out they were not in the top 1/2 of 1% on this, or any other, measure of defensive greatness. If being even that high isn't enough to merit "great", then I'm sorry to tell you that Fran Tarkenton wasn't "great" either.
I figured you wouldn't do it, it would only prove my point. We all know the Falcons were nowhere close to being one of the top three defenses for all time OR for a single season.
The Tarkenton comment was nothing more than a cheap shot, I wouldn't put him in the top 3 of all time, but he's certainly in the top 10.
Another subject beaten to death. See you next time!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@perkdog said:
1985 Bears, 2000 Ravens. #3 is a matter of opinion
I like this list , and I wouldn't hesitate to put the best year of the Purple People Eaters on there to complete it. What year was that @JoeBanzai ? 71?
@perkdog said:
1985 Bears, 2000 Ravens. #3 is a matter of opinion
I like this list , and I wouldn't hesitate to put the best year of the Purple People Eaters on there to complete it. What year was that @JoeBanzai ? 71?
I liked 1969 when they gave up 133 points. But in 1971 they were just about as good giving up 139, 1970 was good as well, giving up 143.
Three teams in the top 7 all time, points allowed per game. No one else has more than one.
'85 Bears were 22nd (the 86 team was better, regular season)
2000 Ravens were 8th almost as good as the worst of the three Vikings teams. ;-)
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JoeBanzai said:
I had a buddy who was a pretty good basketball player when I was in High School. Basketball has never been my sport. He beat me every time we played one-on-one, sometimes spotting me several points.
That doesn't make him great. He was pretty good though, when I saw him play in a couple of league games, he wasn't nearly as "great".
Welp, you missed the point I was making. Let's say you played one-on-one against Michael Jordan instead of your friend. You said "to be great, you have to compete against greatness". So, simply because Jordan was playing against you, he was no longer great. That's what you said, and it was wrong. Jordan would no doubt look even greater than he was playing against you, and the Falcons no doubt looked even greater than they were playing against weak opponents, but that doesn't mean either of them weren't great.
Secondly, it's pretty funny to me how when discussing baseball hitters you don't like, you bring up things like "they sat out against tough pitchers" and in this case, when Atlanta played 3 good teams in the entire year, you don't "deduct" for that. Aren't you the guy who says "Jim Rice sucks" over and over again?
And had Atlanta gotten to choose it's schedule and picked all the bad teams and taken a pass on playing the Steelers and Cowboys then your analogy would make sense. But they didn't and it doesn't. But I have acknowledged that their schedule was weak, and that they aren't the GOAT defense simply by virtue of allowing the fewest points ever. Instead, I compared their actual points allowed to their expected points allowed - exactly the same sort of thing I do all the time with baseball. And in that comparison, they fell off the GOAT perch and landed squarely in the "great" perch.
I figured you wouldn't do it, it would only prove my point. We all know the Falcons were nowhere close to being one of the top three defenses for all time OR for a single season.
I didn't do it because I don't even know what your point is, and I knew that no matter how much time I spent doing it you would move the goalposts and declare that I proved your point. If "your" point is that the Falcons aren't among the top 3, then make room, I already agreed with that so it's now "our" point. MY point was that the 1977 Falcons defense was great, and that I believe - but don't know how to demonstrate - that they were among the top 1/2 of 1% of all-time. That's a group larger than 3, to be sure, but "your" point - near as I can decipher it - is that any defense not among the top 3 is not great. That's a more restrictive definition of "great" than anyone else's, but you're entitled to it. It would help, though, if you'd just say it, or if I've got it wrong, say what your definition of "great" is. It's very hard arguing against points I'm forced to extract from you with my Vulcan mind meld, but I'm doing the best I can.
The Tarkenton comment was nothing more than a cheap shot, I wouldn't put him in the top 3 of all time, but he's certainly in the top 10.
Another subject beaten to death. See you next time!
Again, if you equate "great" with "top 3" then neither the Falcons nor Tarkenton were "great". I think that's what you're doing with the Falcons, but I can't know because you won't say. For the record, I think they were both great.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Joe is a good guy but he's a "homer" who loves his Minnesota teams, that explains why he's stuck on the Vikings for those three seasons. he may be right, he may be wrong, but we'll never get him to budge. I think it's interesting that everyone in this discussion is stuck on points scored. why is that the ultimate measuring stick for greatness?? Joe's three Viking teams, as good as they were at holding opponents to low average scoring throughout those seasons, still managed to not be good enough to win. maybe those defenses just needed to be a little bit better, but who knows.
a good choice that I'm sure Joe and others will argue with is the 1972 Miami Dolphins. that defense was good enough to not only not allow another Team to beat/score more than the Dolphins(read: they never lost), but they were also good enough to pitch three shut-outs. the only other Team I see from the "lists" to match/exceed that is the 2000 Baltimore Ravens with four, but they also weren't good enough to win every game: they lost four times and they even managed to not win their Division!!
fans tend to hate seeing the 1972 Miami Dolphins mentioned in any "great" Team discussions, but facts are stubborn things. they never lost, that pretty good by my standard(which also happens to be why they play the games).
@keets said:
Joe is a good guy but he's a "homer" who loves his Minnesota teams, that explains why he's stuck on the Vikings for those three seasons. he may be right, he may be wrong, but we'll never get him to budge. I think it's interesting that everyone in this discussion is stuck on points scored. why is that the ultimate measuring stick for greatness?? Joe's three Viking teams, as good as they were at holding opponents to low average scoring throughout those seasons, still managed to not be good enough to win. maybe those defenses just needed to be a little bit better, but who knows.
a good choice that I'm sure Joe and others will argue with is the 1972 Miami Dolphins. that defense was good enough to not only not allow another Team to beat/score more than the Dolphins(read: they never lost), but they were also good enough to pitch three shut-outs. the only other Team I see from the "lists" to match/exceed that is the 2000 Baltimore Ravens with four, but they also weren't good enough to win every game: they lost four times and they even managed to not win their Division!!
fans tend to hate seeing the 1972 Miami Dolphins mentioned in any "great" Team discussions, but facts are stubborn things. they never lost, that pretty good by my standard(which also happens to be why they play the games).
I too wondered why no one mentioned the 1972 Dolphins. Actually just thought about that this morning.
I think Don Shula said one of the reasons their defense was so good was that it took two people to stop Manny Fernandez, which meant on every play it was 10 against 9 in the Dolphins favor.
@keets said:
Joe is a good guy but he's a "homer" who loves his Minnesota teams, that explains why he's stuck on the Vikings for those three seasons. he may be right, he may be wrong, but we'll never get him to budge.
>
>
Hey, thanks! I am a good guy. Right back at you. Homer? I'm not sure about that. I certainly don't rank the Vikings as a team as one of the top 3 or 5 greatest of all time, maybe top 10. If I were a "homer" wouldn't I be trying to claim the Vikings were the greatest team ever or al least in that "top three"?
I miss dimeman, now HE was a "homer".
I thought we were talking about defense here, not best teams.
>
>
I think it's interesting that everyone in this discussion is stuck on points scored. why is that the ultimate measuring stick for greatness?? Joe's three Viking teams, as good as they were at holding opponents to low average scoring throughout those seasons, still managed to not be good enough to win. maybe those defenses just needed to be a little bit better, but who knows.
>
That points scored point of view is easy. Allowing the least points is what your defense is supposed to do, looking at yardage is good, but using both together makes the most sense to me. I'll be more than happy to "budge" if you can find a team who can beat the three year numbers Minnesota put up 69-71. First place every year in lowest points allowed. In yards given up, they were first twice and once in second place.
Now you get to the Super Bowl issue. The Vikings failures in big games was primarily the offense not being able to run the ball, but it is true that the defense was also at fault in those four games. If you read my posts, you will see that in any debate, I don't put as much weight on the post season, some players and teams never or rarely get there, so it seems unfair to use the information in many cases to compare.
>
a good choice that I'm sure Joe and others will argue with is the 1972 Miami Dolphins. that defense was good enough to not only not allow another Team to beat/score more than the Dolphins(read: they never lost), but they were also good enough to pitch three shut-outs. the only other Team I see from the "lists" to match/exceed that is the 2000 Baltimore Ravens with four, but they also weren't good enough to win every game: they lost four times and they even managed to not win their Division!!
>
The Dolphins were one of the great defenses along with the ones I researched. I just didn't have time to look deeply into them.
Miami had a 14 year run of greatness on defense, from 1970 to 1984, being in the top 5 (points allowed) 10 times and 5 of those years in the top 3. That's great.
Longer than the Vikings 11 year run, but the Vikings were in the top 3 (remember "Top 3 of All Time") 7 times with three 1st place finishes and two 2nd's. Both teams were out of the top 10 once, the Vikes at 11th, Miami at 15th.
Seven out of eleven seems better than five out of fourteen to me.
>
>
fans tend to hate seeing the 1972 Miami Dolphins mentioned in any "great" Team discussions, but facts are stubborn things. they never lost, that pretty good by my standard(which also happens to be why they play the games).
>
>
One of the finest teams ever! The 1971-73 Dolphins were in the big game every year and won 2 out of 3. They DESTROYED my Vikings. That was a brutal game to watch Csonka was a freight train! VERY BAD DAY.
In 1972 Miami gave up 171 points, 12.2 points a game, just making into the "top 20" at 19th all time.
They "should have" given up 260 points. They were "under" by 89 points 6.4 a game.
They played 10 games against the bottom half offenses in the league, the Vikings were just above the bottom half at #12. They played the Giants who were 8th and the Jets twice who were the 2nd ranked offense in the league. The Jets scored 41 points in the two games,
Was this an all time top three defense, I would say no, but a great one. Very easy schedule.
All time single season defense, absolutely not, top 20 maybe, but they only played three games against top 8 offenses and they certainly didn't dominate the Jets who were at #2.
Now you bring in the "winning" side, well they had the #1 offense, so that helped a LOT.
The thread wasn't all time teams though, just DEFENSE BABY!
P.S. the Vikings had the Dolphins "beat" in their regular season match up 14-9, but a roughing the passer penalty on Bob Lurtsema gave Griese an extra chance, and they scored a TD and won the game!
Another Vikings CHOKE! ;-(
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
…and I would probably go with the early and mid seventies Vikings and Steelers teams, respectively.
Single season? ‘85 Bears, ‘86 Giants and whatever year @JoeBanzai picks for the Vikings - and put them in a bag and pick a name out. Potentially you could add a Steelers team as 4th for a more crowd pleasing answer but that’s my three if not for single season and longer span.
And I would be remiss if I didn’t add and/or mention the early 2000’s Patriots defense which were greater than the sum of their parts and carried Tom Brady before he was ready to carry them.
Ok - now I’m going to go read the replies from everyone else.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
This thread really isn't even legitimate if the late sixties Chiefs defenses don't even get a mention.
Not only was the 1969 Chiefs defense equal to the Vikings in the regular season that year, they
far outclassed the Vikes in the post season. Joe's vaunted Vikes team gave up 50 points in 3 playoff
games, the Chiefs gave up 20 points in 3 playoff games. The Vikings underperformed that year in the postseason
while the Chiefs stood out as one of the best defenses ever assembled.
Super Bowl score Chiefs 23, Vikings 7.
The Chiefs defenses from about 1966-1969 were some of the greatest ever. Willie Lanier, who famously
chanted, "THEY'RE NOT SCORING, THEY'RE NOT SCORING when the Jets were first and goal at the Chiefs
one yard line in the 69 playoffs. Well they didn't score and Lanier took up his rightful residence in the
Hall of Fame along with Bobby Bell, Buck Buchanan, Emmit Thomas, Johnny Robinson from those defenses.
Mean Joe Greene said the mid seventies Steelers modeled their defense after the Chiefs defense from that
late sixties era. But he said they weren't as gifted physically as the Chiefs so had to modify it some to
fit their talents. I guess the Steelers did okay with their defense but the original is always best.
Not saying you have to agree the Chiefs had some of the best defenses ever
but to not even get a mention is laughable especially when they whipped what some
of you think is the best ever the 69 Vikings.
As I said before, I focus on regular season numbers.
From 1962-69 K.C. was in the top 5 every year. There might be some debate at when the AFL became the equal of the NFL, but regardless, they were superb! Their 1966 team gave up 276 points that year and then 35 in the Super Bowl loss to the Packers.
6 out of 8 years in the top three is great! No three year run of dominance like the Vikings.
Focusing on 1969; the Chiefs gave up 177 points. 12.6 per game, 27th all time. They would have given up 291 if the opponents that year hit their average scoring marks.
They did dominate three great offenses in the post season.
I don't disrespect those teams at all, I just don't see that defenses being top three "All Time".
I would trade the "Top Defense" award for a Super Bowl victory
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
1985 Bears - after 45 years it is still the defense all defenses are measured against.
1974 Steelers. 1978 Steelers I can go with too, but to me, their play in the 1975 SB over Minnesota was the 2nd greatest defensive performance of all time.
1972 Dolphins. Really great D. This sounds stupid, I know, but in a way the undefeated season overshadowed the great performances and players of that team. And I hate the fins. But historically it was an outstanding defensive team.
@AC000000 said:
This might be controversial, but I would go with:
1985 Bears - after 45 years it is still the defense all defenses are measured against.
1974 Steelers. 1978 Steelers I can go with too, but to me, their play in the 1975 SB over Minnesota was the 2nd greatest defensive performance of all time.
1972 Dolphins. Really great D. This sounds stupid, I know, but in a way the undefeated season overshadowed the great performances and players of that team. And I hate the fins. But historically it was an outstanding defensive team.
After all the excellent debate that has gone on here, I would go with this list here too.
However, I have no problem with anyone who chooses Baltimore.
Too bad Garo botched that field goal or the Dolphins would have had a Super Bowl shutout to finish their perfect season.
I’m surprised no one mentioned that Eagles group that had two consecutive Championship shutouts.
Comments
^Thanks for the offer, but I gave up drinking long ago!^
This thread really is a mess.
We're not talking about Super Bowls.
The OP asks to be "educated" on the top 3 defenses ever, and Atlanta gets mentioned and the Vikings do not. Idiotic!
It's like saying Roger Maris was a better HR hitter than Babe Ruth.
The Atlanta Falcons were not "awesome" for a single season at all. The best I would go with is above average, maybe very good, but never "great", certainly not "greatest ever".
If you bothered to read my post, you will see that while the Falcons did in fact allow less points in a season than the Vikings, or anyone else, that does not make them a better defense. Hence my sarcastic (but accurate) reference to beating the Little Sisters of the Poor.
It's not even close.
Let's move on to a couple of great defensive teams both for a single season and a long period of dominance, since one year can certainly (as proven) be a complete fluke.
1976 Steelers; allowed 138 points and their opponents were expected to score 263. 8.9 points a game less than they "should" have. Very close to the Vikings, but not quite as good. They sure finished the regular season strong! You can't ignore the slow start, giving up 30 or more points twice.
No one here seems to realize the 1986 Bears were better than the '85 defense, so fine, we'll look at 1985;
1985 Bears; allowed 198 points in 16 games and "should" have given up 336, 8,625 points less per game than expected.
These teams, along with the Vikings, (and several other teams) were much better than the Falcons, and are probably the three I would mention in response to the OP's question.
I did not look at the Ravens, Rams, Cowboys or some of the other defenses that were also better than the Falcons.
In addition, all three of these teams had a great run of top defensive teams. Vikings 8 out of 9 years , Steelers 6 out of 8 years , and Bears 8 out of 10 years in the top 5 points allowed per game.
Atlanta......................hardly.
Personal attacks are completely unnecessary.
If you mean were they one of the three best defenses ever, then no, I don't think they were. But the one's that I would put in the top 3, including (as I said) the Vikings, had already been mentioned so I threw out the 1977 Falcons as a team worth considering.
In the end, I'm disagreeing with both you and with Historicalwood; you took the position that the 1977 Falcons defense wasn't even good and HW that they were the greatest ever. While I disagree with you both, I am a whole lot closer to agreeing with HW than with you. The 1977 Falcons defense was one of the best defenses ever, even if they weren't in the top 3.
Some people have given me two choices, but no one has yet to give me their three choices as the 3 best defenses ever. I guess because it’s too close to call.
In other words if someone asked who were the three best third basemen all time I would expect people to respond with a list including Beltre, Jones, Brett, Schmidt, Robinson, Matthews, Nolan A.
But no one here has given me a serious list of three yet.
Seems like it’s too tough to come up with the three best, and that’s ok.
Sorry, I thought it would be ok since he is not in the discussion.
I'll refrain from calling anyone an idiot from this point on.
I did modify my answer somewhat, saying for that one season they were in the pretty good to very good range.
The OP's question, to me, was all time great defenses, not single season, and even single season Atlanta wasn't in the top three.
They were not great, to be great you have to compete against greatness.
I would like to see where that season against those offenses ranks among the easiest of all the "great" defensive years.
I could do it, but am not going to waste the time finding out something I already know.
Care to take a shot at it dallas?
See if you can find a team that held their opponents to less than 1/2 their expected points for an entire season.
Since the word "great" is undefined there's no point debating that point any further. It's the word I use to describe them, but that doesn't mean you have to.
But the second part of your sentence is incorrect. A team, a defense, a player, a whatever, is as good/great as they are, nothing more, nothing less. Who they play is outside of their control, and does not affect in any way how good/great they are. Atlanta set an NFL record for fewest points allowed in a season; that is in part because they were good/great and in part because their opposition was weak. To assume that it was entirely because of weak opposition is the quick, easy, and lazy way to resolve the issue, but clearly it was some of both. How much? I have no idea, you have no idea, none of God's chillun has any idea. I'm not even sure how to go about figuring it out, and since I don't actually care, I don't think it's going to happen.
There's only a handful of candidates so I could do that, but it's easy enough that I'll leave it to someone else. The Falcons came really close (45% less), and I suspect that they're in the top 10 of all time using that measure. I am having difficulty reconciling your use of this standard, though, and your reluctance to use the word "great" to describe the Falcons defense. I would be very surprised to find out they were not in the top 1/2 of 1% on this, or any other, measure of defensive greatness. If being even that high isn't enough to merit "great", then I'm sorry to tell you that Fran Tarkenton wasn't "great" either.
In Super Bowl terms......85 bears, 86 Giants and 75 Steelers. That's 3
>
In terms of Super Bowl Champions. This is a "Great" list.
I had a buddy who was a pretty good basketball player when I was in High School. Basketball has never been my sport. He beat me every time we played one-on-one, sometimes spotting me several points.
That doesn't make him great. He was pretty good though, when I saw him play in a couple of league games, he wasn't nearly as "great".
Secondly, it's pretty funny to me how when discussing baseball hitters you don't like, you bring up things like "they sat out against tough pitchers" and in this case, when Atlanta played 3 good teams in the entire year, you don't "deduct" for that. Aren't you the guy who says "Jim Rice sucks" over and over again?
"Greatness" is not achieved by dominating the worst, (for the most part) lowest scoring teams in the history of modern football.
I figured you wouldn't do it, it would only prove my point. We all know the Falcons were nowhere close to being one of the top three defenses for all time OR for a single season.
The Tarkenton comment was nothing more than a cheap shot, I wouldn't put him in the top 3 of all time, but he's certainly in the top 10.
Another subject beaten to death. See you next time!
I like this list , and I wouldn't hesitate to put the best year of the Purple People Eaters on there to complete it. What year was that @JoeBanzai ? 71?
I liked 1969 when they gave up 133 points. But in 1971 they were just about as good giving up 139, 1970 was good as well, giving up 143.
Three teams in the top 7 all time, points allowed per game. No one else has more than one.
'85 Bears were 22nd (the 86 team was better, regular season)
2000 Ravens were 8th almost as good as the worst of the three Vikings teams. ;-)
Lol Joe.... You're a great guy! I like your Passion! We could use that on my falcons team now.
Welp, you missed the point I was making. Let's say you played one-on-one against Michael Jordan instead of your friend. You said "to be great, you have to compete against greatness". So, simply because Jordan was playing against you, he was no longer great. That's what you said, and it was wrong. Jordan would no doubt look even greater than he was playing against you, and the Falcons no doubt looked even greater than they were playing against weak opponents, but that doesn't mean either of them weren't great.
And had Atlanta gotten to choose it's schedule and picked all the bad teams and taken a pass on playing the Steelers and Cowboys then your analogy would make sense. But they didn't and it doesn't. But I have acknowledged that their schedule was weak, and that they aren't the GOAT defense simply by virtue of allowing the fewest points ever. Instead, I compared their actual points allowed to their expected points allowed - exactly the same sort of thing I do all the time with baseball. And in that comparison, they fell off the GOAT perch and landed squarely in the "great" perch.
I didn't do it because I don't even know what your point is, and I knew that no matter how much time I spent doing it you would move the goalposts and declare that I proved your point. If "your" point is that the Falcons aren't among the top 3, then make room, I already agreed with that so it's now "our" point. MY point was that the 1977 Falcons defense was great, and that I believe - but don't know how to demonstrate - that they were among the top 1/2 of 1% of all-time. That's a group larger than 3, to be sure, but "your" point - near as I can decipher it - is that any defense not among the top 3 is not great. That's a more restrictive definition of "great" than anyone else's, but you're entitled to it. It would help, though, if you'd just say it, or if I've got it wrong, say what your definition of "great" is. It's very hard arguing against points I'm forced to extract from you with my Vulcan mind meld, but I'm doing the best I can.
Again, if you equate "great" with "top 3" then neither the Falcons nor Tarkenton were "great". I think that's what you're doing with the Falcons, but I can't know because you won't say. For the record, I think they were both great.
When you lose every big game every year you get there, it tends to make you want credit for something you did better than anyone else.
.
Joe is a good guy but he's a "homer" who loves his Minnesota teams, that explains why he's stuck on the Vikings for those three seasons. he may be right, he may be wrong, but we'll never get him to budge. I think it's interesting that everyone in this discussion is stuck on points scored. why is that the ultimate measuring stick for greatness?? Joe's three Viking teams, as good as they were at holding opponents to low average scoring throughout those seasons, still managed to not be good enough to win. maybe those defenses just needed to be a little bit better, but who knows.
a good choice that I'm sure Joe and others will argue with is the 1972 Miami Dolphins. that defense was good enough to not only not allow another Team to beat/score more than the Dolphins(read: they never lost), but they were also good enough to pitch three shut-outs. the only other Team I see from the "lists" to match/exceed that is the 2000 Baltimore Ravens with four, but they also weren't good enough to win every game: they lost four times and they even managed to not win their Division!!
fans tend to hate seeing the 1972 Miami Dolphins mentioned in any "great" Team discussions, but facts are stubborn things. they never lost, that pretty good by my standard(which also happens to be why they play the games).
I too wondered why no one mentioned the 1972 Dolphins. Actually just thought about that this morning.
I think Don Shula said one of the reasons their defense was so good was that it took two people to stop Manny Fernandez, which meant on every play it was 10 against 9 in the Dolphins favor.
>
>
Hey, thanks! I am a good guy. Right back at you. Homer? I'm not sure about that. I certainly don't rank the Vikings as a team as one of the top 3 or 5 greatest of all time, maybe top 10. If I were a "homer" wouldn't I be trying to claim the Vikings were the greatest team ever or al least in that "top three"?
I miss dimeman, now HE was a "homer".
I thought we were talking about defense here, not best teams.
>
>
I think it's interesting that everyone in this discussion is stuck on points scored. why is that the ultimate measuring stick for greatness?? Joe's three Viking teams, as good as they were at holding opponents to low average scoring throughout those seasons, still managed to not be good enough to win. maybe those defenses just needed to be a little bit better, but who knows.
>
That points scored point of view is easy. Allowing the least points is what your defense is supposed to do, looking at yardage is good, but using both together makes the most sense to me. I'll be more than happy to "budge" if you can find a team who can beat the three year numbers Minnesota put up 69-71. First place every year in lowest points allowed. In yards given up, they were first twice and once in second place.
Now you get to the Super Bowl issue. The Vikings failures in big games was primarily the offense not being able to run the ball, but it is true that the defense was also at fault in those four games. If you read my posts, you will see that in any debate, I don't put as much weight on the post season, some players and teams never or rarely get there, so it seems unfair to use the information in many cases to compare.
>
a good choice that I'm sure Joe and others will argue with is the 1972 Miami Dolphins. that defense was good enough to not only not allow another Team to beat/score more than the Dolphins(read: they never lost), but they were also good enough to pitch three shut-outs. the only other Team I see from the "lists" to match/exceed that is the 2000 Baltimore Ravens with four, but they also weren't good enough to win every game: they lost four times and they even managed to not win their Division!!
>
The Dolphins were one of the great defenses along with the ones I researched. I just didn't have time to look deeply into them.
Miami had a 14 year run of greatness on defense, from 1970 to 1984, being in the top 5 (points allowed) 10 times and 5 of those years in the top 3. That's great.
Longer than the Vikings 11 year run, but the Vikings were in the top 3 (remember "Top 3 of All Time") 7 times with three 1st place finishes and two 2nd's. Both teams were out of the top 10 once, the Vikes at 11th, Miami at 15th.
Seven out of eleven seems better than five out of fourteen to me.
>
>
fans tend to hate seeing the 1972 Miami Dolphins mentioned in any "great" Team discussions, but facts are stubborn things. they never lost, that pretty good by my standard(which also happens to be why they play the games).
>
>
One of the finest teams ever! The 1971-73 Dolphins were in the big game every year and won 2 out of 3. They DESTROYED my Vikings. That was a brutal game to watch Csonka was a freight train! VERY BAD DAY.
In 1972 Miami gave up 171 points, 12.2 points a game, just making into the "top 20" at 19th all time.
They "should have" given up 260 points. They were "under" by 89 points 6.4 a game.
They played 10 games against the bottom half offenses in the league, the Vikings were just above the bottom half at #12. They played the Giants who were 8th and the Jets twice who were the 2nd ranked offense in the league. The Jets scored 41 points in the two games,
Was this an all time top three defense, I would say no, but a great one. Very easy schedule.
All time single season defense, absolutely not, top 20 maybe, but they only played three games against top 8 offenses and they certainly didn't dominate the Jets who were at #2.
Now you bring in the "winning" side, well they had the #1 offense, so that helped a LOT.
The thread wasn't all time teams though, just DEFENSE BABY!
P.S. the Vikings had the Dolphins "beat" in their regular season match up 14-9, but a roughing the passer penalty on Bob Lurtsema gave Griese an extra chance, and they scored a TD and won the game!
Another Vikings CHOKE! ;-(
Just looked at Miami’s 1972 results.
Three things.
The defense gave up a lot of late, meaningless points. Subs ?
Csonka averaged 6.6 yards per carry against Minnesota. Tarkenton threw 3 picks and Griese 2.
Riggins ran very well in both games for the Jets against Miami. The kid was a stud as a rookie.
I guess 1986 stands out but any defense from 1983-89 with this man deserves top 3 status:
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
…and I would probably go with the early and mid seventies Vikings and Steelers teams, respectively.
Single season? ‘85 Bears, ‘86 Giants and whatever year @JoeBanzai picks for the Vikings - and put them in a bag and pick a name out. Potentially you could add a Steelers team as 4th for a more crowd pleasing answer but that’s my three if not for single season and longer span.
And I would be remiss if I didn’t add and/or mention the early 2000’s Patriots defense which were greater than the sum of their parts and carried Tom Brady before he was ready to carry them.
Ok - now I’m going to go read the replies from everyone else.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Joe and I have a lot in common. Not only matching first names but undying devotion to a team that is 0-4 in Super Bowls.
"I spent 50% of my money on alcohol, women, and gambling. The other half I wasted.
How about a Buffalo Minnesota Super Bowl?
One would have to win....................RIGHT?
Prolly end in a tie. Rod Serling would come back and call the game a draw!
This thread really isn't even legitimate if the late sixties Chiefs defenses don't even get a mention.
Not only was the 1969 Chiefs defense equal to the Vikings in the regular season that year, they
far outclassed the Vikes in the post season. Joe's vaunted Vikes team gave up 50 points in 3 playoff
games, the Chiefs gave up 20 points in 3 playoff games. The Vikings underperformed that year in the postseason
while the Chiefs stood out as one of the best defenses ever assembled.
Super Bowl score Chiefs 23, Vikings 7.
The Chiefs defenses from about 1966-1969 were some of the greatest ever. Willie Lanier, who famously
chanted, "THEY'RE NOT SCORING, THEY'RE NOT SCORING when the Jets were first and goal at the Chiefs
one yard line in the 69 playoffs. Well they didn't score and Lanier took up his rightful residence in the
Hall of Fame along with Bobby Bell, Buck Buchanan, Emmit Thomas, Johnny Robinson from those defenses.
Mean Joe Greene said the mid seventies Steelers modeled their defense after the Chiefs defense from that
late sixties era. But he said they weren't as gifted physically as the Chiefs so had to modify it some to
fit their talents. I guess the Steelers did okay with their defense but the original is always best.
Not saying you have to agree the Chiefs had some of the best defenses ever
but to not even get a mention is laughable especially when they whipped what some
of you think is the best ever the 69 Vikings.
It's now been mentioned!
As I said before, I focus on regular season numbers.
From 1962-69 K.C. was in the top 5 every year. There might be some debate at when the AFL became the equal of the NFL, but regardless, they were superb! Their 1966 team gave up 276 points that year and then 35 in the Super Bowl loss to the Packers.
6 out of 8 years in the top three is great! No three year run of dominance like the Vikings.
Focusing on 1969; the Chiefs gave up 177 points. 12.6 per game, 27th all time. They would have given up 291 if the opponents that year hit their average scoring marks.
They did dominate three great offenses in the post season.
I don't disrespect those teams at all, I just don't see that defenses being top three "All Time".
I would trade the "Top Defense" award for a Super Bowl victory
>
Very nice run from 1985-90.
I like the 1990 defense a bit better. LT was a beast, the '86 team had more all pros, but the '90 team gave up less points.
Both teams went on to win the big game.
This might be controversial, but I would go with:
1985 Bears - after 45 years it is still the defense all defenses are measured against.
1974 Steelers. 1978 Steelers I can go with too, but to me, their play in the 1975 SB over Minnesota was the 2nd greatest defensive performance of all time.
1972 Dolphins. Really great D. This sounds stupid, I know, but in a way the undefeated season overshadowed the great performances and players of that team. And I hate the fins. But historically it was an outstanding defensive team.
After all the excellent debate that has gone on here, I would go with this list here too.
However, I have no problem with anyone who chooses Baltimore.
Too bad Garo botched that field goal or the Dolphins would have had a Super Bowl shutout to finish their perfect season.
I’m surprised no one mentioned that Eagles group that had two consecutive Championship shutouts.