I am eliminating Pittsburgh from consideration because they won their championships dirty.....steroids before they became the norm.
San Francisco won 5 Superbowls in 14 years. They won 3 of their Superbowls were in dominating fashion. They accomplished their superbowl wins with a revolutionary new offense now called the west coast offense. Joe Montana lead the team to 4 of the wins with the highest QB rating in Superbowl history 127.8 and had a record 122 passes in 4 games without an interception. The other win had who I think is the QB I would want if I was starting a franchise Steve Young.
New England in a similar timeframe of 16 years also won 5 Superbowls and to their credit they also appeared in 2 more Superbowls. None of their wins were in dominating fashion.
Why I think it is San Francisco. I dont want to call New England's wins lucky but being realistic they probably should have lost yesterday based on the fact that they fell so far behind. The win against Seattle also could have easily been a loss.....actually had poor clock management by New England at the end of the game (they should have been calling timeouts in case Seattle scored). Everyone in America was second guessing the play calling by Pete to end the game and Atlanta's play calling seemed to be the talk in the office. If they lose those two games and are 3-4 this is not even debatable. Lastly is their loss to the Giants in 2007 in the prime of Brady's career. That year they dominated teams and if they win that game they would have probably been regarded as the greatest NFL team in history. They outscored their opponents by 190 points in the regular season. They score 38 points against the Giants on the road the last week of the season. Then in the Superbowl they stunk it up and score 14 points......not sure how the egg was served.....but I would say on their face in that game.
I take San Francisco
San Francisco won 5 Superbowls in 14 years. They won 3 of their Superbowls were in dominating fashion. They accomplished their superbowl wins with a revolutionary new offense now called the west coast offense. Joe Montana lead the team to 4 of the wins with the highest QB rating in Superbowl history 127.8 and had a record 122 passes in 4 games without an interception. The other win had who I think is the QB I would want if I was starting a franchise Steve Young.
New England in a similar timeframe of 16 years also won 5 Superbowls and to their credit they also appeared in 2 more Superbowls. None of their wins were in dominating fashion.
Why I think it is San Francisco. I dont want to call New England's wins lucky but being realistic they probably should have lost yesterday based on the fact that they fell so far behind. The win against Seattle also could have easily been a loss.....actually had poor clock management by New England at the end of the game (they should have been calling timeouts in case Seattle scored). Everyone in America was second guessing the play calling by Pete to end the game and Atlanta's play calling seemed to be the talk in the office. If they lose those two games and are 3-4 this is not even debatable. Lastly is their loss to the Giants in 2007 in the prime of Brady's career. That year they dominated teams and if they win that game they would have probably been regarded as the greatest NFL team in history. They outscored their opponents by 190 points in the regular season. They score 38 points against the Giants on the road the last week of the season. Then in the Superbowl they stunk it up and score 14 points......not sure how the egg was served.....but I would say on their face in that game.
I take San Francisco
