What is Digg?89 Comments
- tlo182, on 02/26/2008, -3/+18That website = 2007 Dolphins.
Buried for not being on one page. Seriously, wtf. I clicked on it and all that was on that page was #10 and a muddle of other unintellectual garb. - mlvassallo, on 02/26/2008, -0/+1410)1972 Miami Dolphins
9)1994 San Francisco 49ers
8)1996 Green Bay Packers
7)1992 Dallas Cowboys
6)1984 San Francisco 49ers
5)1979 Pittsburgh Steelers
4)1991 Washington Redskins
3)1989 San Francisco 49ers
2)1985 Chicago Bears
1)1999 St. Louis Rams
All of these could have been either on the same page or just two pages. - Lucas718, on 02/26/2008, -4/+18The '85 Bears should have been #1
- slickriven, on 02/26/2008, -3/+17Dugg for not including any of those cheating Patriot's Teams.
- inactive, on 02/26/2008, -4/+1718 - 1 (:
- chicagodj, on 02/26/2008, -1/+13I dont know why you're getting dugg down. I completely agree. They were truly the MONSTERS of MIDWAY. They were mean. They were big. They hit like a 2 ton hammer.
- theragu40, on 02/26/2008, -0/+10This list is lame anyway. With so many intangibles, it's impossible to use a simulation to declare beyond a doubt who the best team was. How many times do you think the Patriots would have won this year's superbowl in simulations? Quite a few, and look how that turned out. There's no reason to put any stock in these things.
- ElHoju, on 02/26/2008, -4/+14Buried for idiotic #1 pick. The '99 Rams almost lost the Super Bowl to the Titans!
- MisterEX, on 02/26/2008, -1/+10Not to mention they DESTROYED every team in the playoffs. 21-0 against the Giants. 24-0 against the Rams, and a final beatdown of the Patriots, 46-10.
- Herv3, on 02/26/2008, -0/+7I'm not a Bears fan and I agree. The only case against the Bears is the 72 Dolphins for obvious reasons.
- JovialTempest, on 02/26/2008, -0/+61970s Steelers were the best dynasty team to ever play the game of football
- deathweaver108, on 02/26/2008, -0/+6The who? ;)
- emptyo, on 02/26/2008, -6/+11HERE WE GO STEELERS, HERE WE GO!!!!
:) - stellarceltic, on 02/26/2008, -0/+5http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lk-wWUQKBg
- leetninja, on 02/26/2008, -1/+5im from boston ... 18 wins ... one giant loss ... /cry
- Chirp08, on 02/26/2008, -0/+4How many times do you think the Patriots would have won this year's superbowl in simulations?
18:1 - stellarceltic, on 02/26/2008, -2/+6Bill Romanowski is one of the biggest douchebags to ever play professional sports.
- Gaffigan, on 02/26/2008, -1/+4As a Rams fan, I can honestly say "WOOT".
That felt good, haven't done that for the Rams in a while =D - neopolaris, on 02/26/2008, -0/+3The STEELERS at only #5?
- bigbill780, on 02/26/2008, -0/+3I dont agree with this at all. If you look at the size of players and skill level compared to the older teams it doesnt even compare. If you were to match the 2007 Dolphins against the 1972 Dolphins, the older team would get destroyed. The size of a lineman back then is equal to like a free safety now a days.
- rvandy, on 02/26/2008, -0/+3Dugg for the '91 Skins, the greatest team of all time who were so great they were given the gift of time travel by our alien overlords and who's members now roam through time, both past and future, doing good deeds and ragging on Jim Kelly.
- jetblackz4, on 02/26/2008, -4/+71985 Bears best team ever PERIOD.
Da Bears !!!! - MisterEX, on 02/26/2008, -0/+2Exactly. The Titans needed less than a yard.
- shoverbj, on 02/26/2008, -1/+3The greatest shirt ever, I bought won for my trip to Boston next month.
http://www.bustedtees.com/shirt/18-1/male - inactive, on 02/26/2008, -0/+2Being from Boston, I can definitely understand you're too dumb to understand the joke Herv3 was making. I'd definitely say you're "*****' re-tad-tid."
- Xenufield, on 02/26/2008, -0/+2There have been Steelers teams with much better stats than the 1979 team. The 2007 season's defense had stats that dominated the Steel Curtain performances of the past for example.
- Herv3, on 02/26/2008, -1/+3You should of capitalized Giants.
- saunders45, on 02/26/2008, -0/+2The played a weak schedule, with no salary cap, no free agency, and 3 less games. Lame.
- getisboy, on 02/26/2008, -0/+1i'm still curious even though they lost
- Scrappy1850, on 02/26/2008, -0/+1chris
- Scrappy1850, on 02/26/2008, -0/+1yo, i am a life long skins fan. best comment i have ever seen on Digg. thanks and WTF!?!?!?
- Flyer00, on 02/26/2008, -0/+1Stupid computer? Isn't that an oxymoron?
- kjk437, on 02/26/2008, -0/+1It's not like a couple of guys sat around and said, "Well, we're going to make the most controversial #1 pick we can!" This is a simulation based on the stats from that regular season + the matchup they had during the Super Bowl. The Rams were then shown statistically to have a 77% chance at winning the game, making them the most heavily favored Super Bowl champs ever.
Now, the flaw with this is in that statistical percentage. The Rams still had a shot at losing the game (which they almost did, although you can't argue that it wasn't an exciting game), so did this year's Patriots. I just ran the simulations 20 times for this years Super Bowl (in NO) and came out with the Patriots favored 14 times. That means, if they had won, that would have been a 70% according to this list, and been 3rd on this list. 3rd. Problem is, they didn't win. Hopefully you can see now how this is run. - mkriss5681, on 02/26/2008, -0/+1What wouldn't I give to have this made into a playable video game. Instead of having modern teams you can play as the best Superbowl teams.
- fadetoone, on 02/26/2008, -1/+2I would have said that, the 92 cowboys, or one of the 49ers teams from the Montana era.
- convergent, on 03/01/2008, -0/+11995 Cowboys>1992
:( - Peko, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1You have a point, but also you might have noticed that the list had a strong bias towards recent teams. I think a contemporary O line would be able to crush an old school line, eat their bones, spit them out and still have time for an endorsement before they had to pee in a cup.
- neopolaris, on 02/26/2008, -1/+2The patroits haven't won in years and I flippin' love it.
- clarient, on 02/26/2008, -0/+1Somehow I don't think the '07 Steeler lineup could have held their own against he '79 team. The game is different than it used to be.
- clarient, on 02/26/2008, -0/+1PITTSBURGH'S GOING TO THE SUPERBOWL!
- dafragsta, on 02/26/2008, -0/+1the 89 Niners team ranked fairly well. They were loaded all the way around the ball that year. Joe Montana, Roger Craig, Tom Rathman, John Taylor, Brent Jones, Jerry Rice, Ronnie Lott, Charles Hailey, and a bunch of other Pro Bowlers I'm forgetting. The 90s Cowboys were equally loaded with Aikman, Emmit Smith, Jay Novaczek (sp), Kelvin Martin, Michael Irvin, ... and Leon Lett. Oh man, that last one always brings back memories of the fumbled field goal.
- akatherder, on 02/26/2008, -1/+2This list is pretty worthless, as evidenced by the 99 Rams at #1. Take this year's Super Bowl for example. The only thing that slowed the Patriots down all season long was an unrelenting pass rush. The Giants are a good team with a great pass rush. They were able to keep enough pressure while (most importantly) not leaving themselves vulnerable and giving up any big plays. How do you quantify that?
That's why the Patriots barely squeaked out a win when they played the Giants a few weeks before the Super Bowl.
And what if the Patriots had won this year's Super Bowl? Would they be #1 because they ran up the score every time they played some scrubs in the regular season? How meaningful is that? - nickster9224, on 02/26/2008, -0/+1Dugg for DA BEARSS!
- dafragsta, on 02/26/2008, -0/+1They also did a mean Superbowl Shuffle.
/I'm not here to start no trouble... - gettarat, on 10/27/2008, -0/+1The '85 Bears should have been #1
http://quitsmokingclub.org - nbcaffeine, on 02/26/2008, -0/+1Yeah, but the 1979 Steelers won the championship. What did the 2007 steelers do?
/had the steelers D on my fantasy team. Guaranteed a win most weeks. - clarient, on 02/26/2008, -0/+1That's two words.
- Herv3, on 02/26/2008, -2/+3The Titans cheated WTF?
- Peko, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1Didn't anybody RTFA? I picked the 85 bears to be #1 as well but I thought the reasoning for making them #2 was fairly reasonable, arguable, but reasonable. And don't forget, it's a computer simulation, not real life.
- kjk437, on 02/26/2008, -0/+1Don't know why MixMastaKooz is being dugg down. He's right, and that's the reason the Rams haven't been able to do squat these past few years.
-
Show 51 - 89 of 89 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is