🏈 Is this the best team we've ever had?

[TheChief]

We've had this discussion, but as of right now for me 1992 was better.

 

[UAgrad93]

I think its impossible to make comparisons when we have more awards out now than what was out in the 20's thru the 80's. This team is a really good one but lets don't put them up there as the best until we finish the job on Jan. 7.

 

[ExiledTidefan]

It's hard for me to make a call on this, because so many of the awards that have been received this year were named in honor players that we competed against back in those days. Those awards didn't exist then.

Same argument with Mark Ingram being the best player ever: it's relative to the time and circumstance. If Coach Bryant said his '66 team was his best ever, then, for that era, the 1966 team was the best. Since Bryant, the 1992 team was indeed great, but did they not play some close games? Sure they did. I thought that 1989 team had the mark of greatness, but lost to Auburn. That 2005 team was stout as well, but the loss of Prothro took us down another notch. Defensively, we were every bit as good as we were in 08 and 09. Thanks, Joe Kines.

If we win over Texas, and in convincing manner, then I might be tempted to put this team amongst our best. Best ever player, now that's a different story altogether. If we look at stats, then we've got some big names. If we look at win/loss records, gonna be hard to vote against Jay Barker, even with all of his flaws and inconsistencies.

 

[c5vetman]

I definitely think we have one of the best offenses we've ever had in this year's team, from OL to QB to RB to WR and TE across the board, but I still believe the 92 defense and special teams was a little better all around. It's definitely the best in my lifetime from top to bottom, but I wasn't around during the dynasty under the Bear. He died when I was 7, so I didn't really grasp how good some of the teams of the 70's were, and of course the 60's way before my time.

If we win the NC big over Texas, then I'll be the first one to say that this team was better than the 92 or any other in my life.

 

[c5vetman]

If we win over Texas, and in convincing manner, then I might be tempted to put this team amongst our best. Best ever player, now that's a different story altogether. If we look at stats, then we've got some big names. If we look at win/loss records, gonna be hard to vote against Jay Barker, even with all of his flaws and inconsistencies.

I like Jay, but I'd never put him anywhere near the best QB, much less the best player. He happened to be smart enough to not make mistakes that could hurt you, and he had a supporting cast that was good enough to make up for his qb skill. Right now, I'd rank Greg way ahead of Jay as far as the better qb, both win/loss (Jay lost a few finally), and especially in skill at threading the needle and scrambling. But neither of these guys are close to Stabler, Namath, etc...

 

[AFF]

1925 (10-0) NC, One All American (Hubert), eight shutouts, outscored opponents 297-26
1934 (10-0) NC, Three All Americans (Howell, Hudson, Lee), five shutouts, outscored opponents 316-45, beat Stanford 29-13 in the Rose Bowl
1961 (11-0) NC, One All American (Billy Neighbors), six shutouts, outscored opponents 297-25
1966 (11-0) 3rd, Four All Americans (Cody, Dowdy, Johns, Perkins), six shutouts, outscored opponents 301-44, beat Nebraska 34-7 in the Sugar Bowl
1973 (11-1) NC, Three All-Americans (Brown, Lowe, Wheeler), four shutouts, outscored opponents 454-89, lost to Notre Dame 24-23 in the Sugar Bowl after a missed extra point
1979 (12-0) NC, Three All-Americans (Stephenson, McNeal, Bunch), five shutouts, outscored opponents 359-58, beat Arkansas 24-9 in the Sugar Bowl
1992 (13-0) NC, Three All Americans (Copeland, Curry, Langham), three shutouts, outscored opponents 332-109, defense put nine players in the NFL, 34-13 over No. 1 Miami in Sugar Bowl
2009 (13-0) Six All Americans (Ingram, Johnson, Cody, McClain, Tiffin, Arenas), one shutout, Heisman Trophy Winner, so far has outscored opponents 412-143

The 1973 team was one of the greatest I remember. They shared the NC with Notre Dame and their coach Ara Parseghian once remarked something to the effect that Alabama was given the UPI NC in ’73 to make up for the obvious oversight in ’66 when the Tide got shafted.

As for best offense, I’d say the 1973 team has a strong argument. As far as defenses go, there are so many great Bama defenses to consider. The 1925 team had 8 shutouts and allowed only 2.6 points a game! The ’61 defense had 6 shutouts and only allowed 2.27 pts/game.

Alabama’s offense in 2009 is 42 points shy of tying the all time record for points scored in a season. However, the 1973 Alabama team scored 454 points in only 12 games (37.8 pts/game) while giving up an average of 7.4 pts/game. The 2009 squad averages 31.7 pts/game while giving up 11 pts/game.

Is the 2009 team the best of all time? Like others have said, it all depends on whether or not they bring home the NC trophy. If they do, then this team would at least have a strong argument as the most accomplished team that Alabama has ever fielded. If they don't, they could be compared to the likes of the '66 team who didn't win the NC, or the '73 team which had a blemished record (but still won the NC).

:elephant:

 

[LBS]

1925 (10-0) NC, One All American (Hubert), eight shutouts, outscored opponents 297-26
1934 (10-0) NC, Three All Americans (Howell, Hudson, Lee), five shutouts, outscored opponents 316-45, beat Stanford 29-13 in the Rose Bowl
1961 (11-0) NC, One All American (Billy Neighbors), six shutouts, outscored opponents 297-25
1966 (11-0) 3rd, Four All Americans (Cody, Dowdy, Johns, Perkins), six shutouts, outscored opponents 301-44, beat Nebraska 34-7 in the Sugar Bowl
1973 (11-1) NC, Three All-Americans (Brown, Lowe, Wheeler), four shutouts, outscored opponents 454-89, lost to Notre Dame 24-23 in the Sugar Bowl after a missed extra point
1979 (12-0) NC, Three All-Americans (Stephenson, McNeal, Bunch), five shutouts, outscored opponents 359-58, beat Arkansas 24-9 in the Sugar Bowl
1992 (13-0) NC, Three All Americans (Copeland, Curry, Langham), three shutouts, outscored opponents 332-109, defense put nine players in the NFL, 34-13 over No. 1 Miami in Sugar Bowl
2009 (13-0) Six All Americans (Ingram, Johnson, Cody, McClain, Tiffin, Arenas), one shutout, Heisman Trophy Winner, so far has outscored opponents 412-143

The 1973 team was one of the greatest I remember. They shared the NC with Notre Dame and their coach Ara Parseghian once remarked something to the effect that Alabama was given the UPI NC in ’73 to make up for the obvious oversight in ’66 when the Tide got shafted.

As for best offense, I’d say the 1973 team has a strong argument. As far as defenses go, there are so many great Bama defenses to consider. The 1925 team had 8 shutouts and allowed only 2.6 points a game! The ’61 defense had 6 shutouts and only allowed 2.27 pts/game.

Alabama’s offense in 2009 is 42 points shy of tying the all time record for points scored in a season. However, the 1973 Alabama team scored 454 points in only 12 games (37.8 pts/game) while giving up an average of 7.4 pts/game. The 2009 squad averages 31.7 pts/game while giving up 11 pts/game.

Is the 2009 team the best of all time? Like others have said, it all depends on whether or not they bring home the NC trophy. If they do, then this team would at least have a strong argument as the most accomplished team that Alabama has ever fielded. If they don't, they could be compared to the likes of the '66 team who didn't win the NC, or the '73 team which had a blemished record (but still won the NC).

:elephant:

:td:!

 

[Lyrically_N_Gaged]

I feel like we'll be even better in years to come. Possibly next year.

 

[AFF]

I feel like we'll be even better in years to come. Possibly next year.

Now THAT's the spirit!

Roll Tide! :elephant:

 

[Colin]

It's hard for me to make a call on this, because so many of the awards that have been received this year were named in honor players that we competed against back in those days. Those awards didn't exist then.

Same argument with Mark Ingram being the best player ever: it's relative to the time and circumstance. If Coach Bryant said his '66 team was his best ever, then, for that era, the 1966 team was the best. Since Bryant, the 1992 team was indeed great, but did they not play some close games? Sure they did. I thought that 1989 team had the mark of greatness, but lost to Auburn. That 2005 team was stout as well, but the loss of Prothro took us down another notch. Defensively, we were every bit as good as we were in 08 and 09. Thanks, Joe Kines.

If we win over Texas, and in convincing manner, then I might be tempted to put this team amongst our best. Best ever player, now that's a different story altogether. If we look at stats, then we've got some big names. If we look at win/loss records, gonna be hard to vote against Jay Barker, even with all of his flaws and inconsistencies.

I think were every bit as successful on 05 defense maybe, but with that lack luster offense, if I had a time machine I would put this 09 or even 08 defense in its place with Nick Saban running the defense (if we stuck to just defense :-P). 1) Theres more talent now overall 2) the defensive schemes, the mindset, the heart is way more advanced and more driven than that 05 defense.

Not saying the 05 wasn't good, I just prefer Sabans scheme over the "bend but don't break" scheme.

 

[psychojoe]

Any discussion of our greatest team ever would have to include our 1961 NC outfit. 11-0 with six shutouts, five in a row, only 25 points allowed all year while scooring 297.

Besides consensus all americans LeRoy Jordan and Billy Neighbors it featured the legendary Pat Trammell at QB. Future successful coaches included Charlie Pell, Bill Oliver and Richard Williamson. Future NFL players Butch Wilson, Ray Abruzze, Steve Wright and Tommy Brooker (as well as Jordan and Neighbors) were on this squad.

What makes comparing teams from the early sixties with the later years difficult was the substitution rules of the day. Most of these guys played both ways.

 

[UAgrad93]

Agreed Joe. You can't compare teams across time gaps. So much has changed over the years in the rules and the players. This team wins and they will go down as one of our "greatest". I just don't think you can put a tag on one team.

 

[psychojoe]

Just a footnote on the 1966 team. To understand what happened, you have to look at the 1964 and 1965 seasons.

The 1964 outfit went 10-0 and was ranked #1 going into the bowl season. That year the polls decided to award the NC before the bowls. We lost a heartbreaker to Texas 21-17 if I remember correctly. (There was a fourth quarter goal line play where Joe Namath still says he scored but it was ruled otherwise). To rectify that the polls decided to award their NCs after the bowls in 1965. We lost to Georgia in the opener on a blown call, and tied Tennessee on a mental lapse by Kenny Stabler, but were devestating down the stretch. We entered New Year's day ranked #5, playing #1 Nebraska. By the time our game rolled around 2-4 had all lost, and Nebraska never knew what hit them. So in 1964 we won because it was chosen before the bowls, and in 1965 we won because it was chosen after the bowls. That pretty much left the polls in the mood to not let us have it in 1966 if there was any reasonable alternative.

 

[alagator]

Just a footnote on the 1966 team. To understand what happened, you have to look at the 1964 and 1965 seasons.

The 1964 outfit went 10-0 and was ranked #1 going into the bowl season. That year the polls decided to award the NC before the bowls. We lost a heartbreaker to Texas 21-17 if I remember correctly. (There was a fourth quarter goal line play where Joe Namath still says he scored but it was ruled otherwise). To rectify that the polls decided to award their NCs after the bowls in 1965. We lost to Georgia in the opener on a blown call, and tied Tennessee on a mental lapse by Kenny Stabler, but were devestating down the stretch. We entered New Year's day ranked #5, playing #1 Nebraska. By the time our game rolled around 2-4 had all lost, and Nebraska never knew what hit them. So in 1964 we won because it was chosen before the bowls, and in 1965 we won because it was chosen after the bowls. That pretty much left the polls in the mood to not let us have it in 1966 if there was any reasonable alternative.

I still continue to believe some deep hatred by northern voters toward the state of Alabama over segregation played a role in 1966. Some very serious issues that had nothing to do with football were brewing around that time and no way was an all-white team going to get the benefit of the doubt - or become the first three-peat national champion.

Given that the 'Game of the Century' between two northern teams resulted in a tie, we had no chance.

But I agree the facts of 1964 and 1965 played a role too.

 

[alagator]

What makes comparing teams from the early sixties with the later years difficult was the substitution rules of the day. Most of these guys played both ways.

Everyone that tries to argue that the teams of yesteryear would get destroyed by the teams of today just automatically assume the rules of the contest would be the rules of today.

And, as you point out, if you implement the limited substitution rules of yesteryear you dramatically change the balance of competition.

In the early 1960s if a player went out of the contest even for an injury he had to sit out either the remainder of that half or quarter. Hell, today you have personnel groupings for 3rd-and-4 that differ dramatically from 3rd-and-9. Imagine a game on an early September afternoon and some of these 300 pound behemoths trying to play 65 plays on the offensive line, then have to filp over and play 65 plays on defense - in between having to run down the field covering or blocking for punts and kickoffs. They would be tanked by the middle of the second quarter.

Offensive linemen of that day could not use their hands in ANY way. There is a reason the old linemen of the electric football games had their hands gripping their own chest and their elbows out like a flying V. That was how they had to block on both run and pass plays. Offensive linemen today can actually grab a defensive lineman's jersey so long as their 'hands are inside the body of the defender.' See if a 340-pound offensive tackle can block a 215-pound rusher using only his elbows and forearms.

The football of that era was even bigger - and more egg shaped than today's ball. Despite being bigger - and having larger hands, I doubt you would balls thrown with the zip and accuracy you find today.

I do think today's players are larger and more skilled - not to mention trained and conditioned, and would probably win. But it would be more interesting than many believe if you use 1960's rules.

 

[It Takes Eleven]

Everyone that tries to argue that the teams of yesteryear would get destroyed by the teams of today just automatically assume the rules of the contest would be the rules of today.

And, as you point out, if you implement the limited substitution rules of yesteryear you dramatically change the balance of competition.

In the early 1960s if a player went out of the contest even for an injury he had to sit out either the remainder of that half or quarter. Hell, today you have personnel groupings for 3rd-and-4 that differ dramatically from 3rd-and-9. Imagine a game on an early September afternoon and some of these 300 pound behemoths trying to play 65 plays on the offensive line, then have to filp over and play 65 plays on defense - in between having to run down the field covering or blocking for punts and kickoffs. They would be tanked by the middle of the second quarter.

Offensive linemen of that day could not use their hands in ANY way. There is a reason the old linemen of the electric football games had their hands gripping their own chest and their elbows out like a flying V. That was how they had to block on both run and pass plays. Offensive linemen today can actually grab a defensive lineman's jersey so long as their 'hands are inside the body of the defender.' See if a 340-pound offensive tackle can block a 215-pound rusher using only his elbows and forearms.

The football of that era was even bigger - and more egg shaped than today's ball. Despite being bigger - and having larger hands, I doubt you would balls thrown with the zip and accuracy you find today.

I do think today's players are larger and more skilled - not to mention trained and conditioned, and would probably win. But it would be more interesting than many believe if you use 1960's rules.

This reminds me of Al Browning's Crimson Coronation, a novel about Bama's greatest teams playing each other to see who was best. It requires some suspension of belief, but it was an enjoyable read.

RTR,

Tim

 

[psychojoe]

There were some interesting changes in the substitution rules in the early sixties. 1962 brought in the "wild card" rule, where a team could substitute one player on a given play and it wouldn't count against them. Bryant used this to spare Namath playing defense, but Joe was on the defense around the goal line.

Paul Dietzel at LSU had some great teams in the late fifties and early sixties. He was an innovator, and actually had an idea ahead of its team. He had three teams, though it was not the usual depth chart. His first group, the "white team" played both ways and had his best players. His second group was the "Go Team" which consisted of promising players, and they played only offense. His third group, a bunch of tough guys, comprised the storied "Chinese Bandits", who played only defense.

LSU had been hammering someone and Dietzel decided to sit his starters. They opened the fourth quarter with the "Go Team" on offense. They scored, so the bandits came in and got a stop. The bandits did have a limited offense, but the only qb who knew what they ran was hurt, so Dietzel sent his White Team back out. The starters rolled to a couple of more scores and Dietzel took a lot of heat for running up the score, but he had trapped himself by using his specialists at the start of the quarter.

I'll echo the point Alagtor made about the relative size of players. Bryant's first 7 or 8 teams at Alabama won big because they were superbly conditioned. You couldn't be an old style "sixty minute man" and keep the bulk that today's players have.

 

[alagator]

There were some interesting changes in the substitution rules in the early sixties. 1962 brought in the "wild card" rule, where a team could substitute one player on a given play and it wouldn't count against them. Bryant used this to spare Namath playing defense, but Joe was on the defense around the goal line.

I don't think even many Alabama fans know how truly gifted and complete a football player was Namath. Before his knees were shredded, he was just an amazing athlete. A few years before my time, but I watched some film of him while I had access as a student and he was unbelievable.

Kind of off topic, but I remember a story Namath told about when he was a LA Ram at the very end of his career.

Everyone knew Namath by that time had no knees whatsoever. Some opposing lineman rushed in and blindsided Namath with a vicious hit to his shoulders and neck. As Namath laid on the ground in a heap, the lineman told him (paraphrased) "Don't worry Joe, I won't hit you in the knees."

Namath said he told him "G-D-it, I had rather you hit me in the knees than in the head. I already don't have any knees. I don't need to lose my head too." Or something to that effect.

 

[Big_Fan]

You know my feelings on it. As far as ability and talent level, this year's team is easily our best ever. Head to head on the field they would beat any team we have ever had. The problem however, is that you must compare era to era. Even 1992 was a different era. The OL were smaller and weaker back then. In 1989 Tony Mandarich at 6'6/315 was a freak, and now it is not unusual to see linemen like him.

Head to head, the 1992 offense would not fare well against the 2009 defense, while the 2009 offense would have significantly more success. The 1992 defense didn't have to face spread offenses, and offensive football has advanced significantly since then. The 2009 offense might not score 50, but I don't think the 92 defense would hold them under 30 or 40.

Conversely, the 92 team would beat the 73 team by 100, and a good high school team from 2009 would beat the teams from the 60's and earlier.

That is my opinion, based on analysis of physical development alone. It is a different game today.

 

[psychojoe]

I don't think even many Alabama fans know how truly gifted and complete a football player was Namath. Before his knees were shredded, he was just an amazing athlete. A few years before my time, but I watched some film of him while I had access as a student and he was unbelievable.

Kind of off topic, but I remember a story Namath told about when he was a LA Ram at the very end of his career.

Everyone knew Namath by that time had no knees whatsoever. Some opposing lineman rushed in and blindsided Namath with a vicious hit to his shoulders and neck. As Namath laid on the ground in a heap, the lineman told him (paraphrased) "Don't worry Joe, I won't hit you in the knees."

Namath said he told him "G-D-it, I had rather you hit me in the knees than in the head. I already don't have any knees. I don't need to lose my head too." Or something to that effect.

Just to share a Namath story from his undergraduate days. After we lost to Auburn 10-8 in 1963 Joe went out and got drunk and got caught. He was booted from the team for the remaining game against Miami and the bowl game. He also got kicked out of the athletic dorm, and moved into an empty room in the basement of one of those old boarding houses that used to be across the street from the stadium. A cousin of mine was living in the other room. To say the least the place was a dump. My cousin tells the story that while he was there one of Joe's past times was to sit in a folding chair at one end of the hallway with a beer in one hand and a dart in the other and take target practice against roaches running along the wall at the other end of the hall, some 12 feet away. More often than not he skewered the roach. Joe was said to be quite a baseball player as well, which is easy to believe considering his hand-eye coordination.