Best Team in Tecmo

[ImFlo]

I think the top three teams, in this order, is Gaints, Niners, then the Bills. I think all three of these teams could argue about being the best. No other team is up there with them. They might be close, but those three teams are definitly the best.

Other teams that are still up there but not at that level, in no particular order: Bears, Eagles, Raiders, Cheifs, Bengals, Oilers

I might post again with reasons for each team, and maybe rankings for those 4-9 spots.

[Nameless Loser]

The Niners are pretty good, but their advantage is being faster and better at receiving on offense. On the other hand, LT just blocking one XP can totally change a game, let alone the fact that you can't kick a FG farther than the 25 yard line unless you really want your kicker to try and run for it.

The Giants' linebackers are too evil...sure, SF's secondary has better stars because of their safeties, but the Giants have Reasons, who covers better than either of the SF corners if you don't ask him to fly around. And then you have LT...frankly, LT can be as dominating as Rod Woodson against the short pass sometimes.

As far as the Eagles are concerned...QB Eagles usually averages 2-3 turnovers a game. I don't think you can say they're the best team when QB Eagles is going to lose it that much. Plus their running game can be shut down fairly easily.

[operagost]

Unless there's a "hidden" ball control stat for QBs, QB Eagles isn't going to turn the ball over any more than any other QB. If you mean interceptions, then again, we have Byars at RB with 69 and TE Keith Jackson with 63. Those are your weapons. WR Barnett is a reasonable 56. If you're getting picked off a lot with the Eagles, maybe you should stop throwing into double coverage.

[FulcherVulture]

1-49ers-Too many talented players. Don't underestimate the D. Run if you want, but you always have Montana to Rice.

2-Giants-Solid at every position. Season play, just work with whoevers in the best condition. People using the GIA get a hard on when you try to kick a field goal against them. If LT's EXCELLNT, they bust a nut before you even snap it. If you don't think the GIA are 1 or 2, you've played against their default playbook too much.

3-Bills-Sort of the inverse of the GIA. Off is better, but Def is not. I play better with HOU or RAI over BUF, but I think the Bills are better.

4-Houston-People who have more respect for the run will understandably put RAI higher. Moon to the WR is a surer bet than Randall.I like to put WR in the RBslot and pass to them. I like using the top CB.

5-Raiders-Solid team, but RAI slide up and down the rankings with BO's condition. Good WR and passing speed will hurt anyone who targets BO.

The Rest (no order):

These teams all have great things going for them IF you play'em right.

Condition can make or break you, while the teams above will always have somebody talented in EXCELLENT condition.

Chicago-the D will make them bitch, work the run to make'em cry.

No matter who you play with on D, it feels like some CHI blocker is after you.

Chiefs-I personally stop the MAN RB, so I don't feel HP isn't such a huge factor. If you think Okoye is everything, your going to lose (you must balance). The Giants are similiar and better at more positions.

Eagles-The lack of D and running game hurts. The lack of running game let's your opponent call 1 pass out of 4 (more if they play poker). You really need to know how to play Randall. I've seen too many Randal braggers get beat by people who know how to play D to be convinced.

Miami-You've got to know/like Marino-you've got to switch among recievers FAST.

Bengals (only here because I KILL with them) I know the Eagles/Chiefs are better because of the R & O factors, but I personally would fair better with the Bengals in battle. If your mediocre at running, passing, or D, the Bengals are going to let you down hard. KEY players, the rest of the team will not help you much at all.

As for fumbles, none of these teams cough up the ball as much as the Chiefs.

And that's the truth. . .

[QB Browns]

I voted for the Bills to keep it interesting, but the 'Niners have got to be the best team, they have a stud at both ends of the deep levels, which is key.

That being said, if the Bills are used effectively they can be very tough. Lofton can be used to bring in passes consistently. Thomas is tough running and receiving. And QB Bills is a reasonable enough QB to make things happen in a very balanced attack, easily the most balanced in the game (one could make an argument for the Rams here maybe...) Defensively the Bills have enough players to make some stops, and their secondary is capable of generating turnovers. Oodmes and Kelso usually come through with a turnover on a consistent basis, and you know how frustrating that can be. In conclusion, most balanced O and playmaking D make the Bills tough, and, if used correctly, able to run with anyone. Lots of options.

The Eagles are lacking options on offense, and I experience a problem with QB Eagles (can we call him by his real name, please? no Randall Cunningham I ever watched played like this) coughing up the ball when I get greedy and start fight for some extra yardage. Plus the crap safteties...

The Giants don't have the offense for me. Ottis and Megget can control, but neither can break it out. I am happy to focus on the run against them because their receivers, while good, are not spectacular. Just wait until Ingram whiffs on a deep pass for you late in the game.

I agree with the Bears threads. They can be flat out annoying, and Neal is easily the superior Anderson. I see little difference between their D and NYG's, if anything the Bears D is better.

Anyway, balance is the key, especially when facing a talented human, its better to be able to throw a few different things at them and see what works. At least, thats how I feel...

[dwightstone]

I think this might be a little open ended, so I decided to narrow the question a little. I picked the Raiders, solely based on who I think the toughest team to play against is. In my years of playing against the computer, I would make a very confident guess that I have lost to the Raiders more than any other team. There is a certain "cheapness" factor to every team. What I mean by that is that some teams just seem to pull out some crazy stuff, like weird fumbles or broken tackles or crazy comebacks. The Raiders are the team that does this to me. I once lost a Super Bowl to the Raiders on a 95 yard run by bo jackson on the last play of the game. So looking at this subject from the view point of who is the hardest COMP team to beat, I would go with the Raiders.

[chammer39]

The 49ers and the Bills can be hard sometimes.

[operagost]

Really? I hadn't noticed.

[Nameless Loser]

Most other QBs run out of bounds or check it down...because QB Eagles is so much of their offense, and because you call so many pass plays, he's always exposed and in the open, ready to fumble. I personally on superstition think he does fumble more often, but frankly, the number of tackles he takes almost guarantees he'll lose it.

Unless you don't want a running game, Keith Jackson is not going to be a WR. And after Byars...nothing. Plus, because everybody but Eagles and Jackson is slow, it's easy for you or the drones to cover them. And they aren't going to get very far before the pass rush gets to Eagles, causing his high pass speed to work against him when the ball comes out erratic.

Unless there's a "hidden" ball control stat for QBs, QB Eagles isn't going to turn the ball over any more than any other QB. If you mean interceptions, then again, we have Byars at RB with 69 and TE Keith Jackson with 63. Those are your weapons. WR Barnett is a reasonable 56. If you're getting picked off a lot with the Eagles, maybe you should stop throwing into double coverage.

[operagost]

The Chiefs are nearly the opposite of the Eagles. They have a slow QB and RBs and TEs who can't catch. They also have an excellent WR and a fast, powerful RB; these are what Philly lacks. I'll take the Eagles, and pick you apart with Pro T Flare D and Shotgun 3-wing.

That being said, Philly is way behind the Giants and 9ers, but they're in the top 10. I'm just saying that no one seems to care how well your TE or RBs can catch. I'll be sure to exploit that attitude once I actually find a Tecmo league anywhere near Philly.

[Louae]

I chose Houston as my top team in tecmo bowl.

1 - Houston - I just love their offense. Hill, Givens, Jeffries and Duncan, how can you not be happy with this quartet of recievers. Sure Jerry Rice and John Taylor are a formidable duo, but there's just so much depth at WR for me to rank those two above my quartet. One offense, I usually move Hill to running back to give me that speed element I'm lacking to make the running game a threat and move White to a Wide Receiver position I wouldn't depend on. All four pass plays I'd choose would be plays I can successfully complete passes REGARDLESS of my opponent picking my play. I use the pitch out plays from the spread formation for my run plays to provide some protection against people using the nose tackle to sack my QB on the snap. I'd have Houston head and shoulders above anybody else if Ray Childress was located at one of the inside linebacker spots instead of the outside, but hey, we can't have it all. All in all, Houston is my favorite team to select in head to head competition.

2 - Giants - You know, the giants are a close second to Houston. If only the giants had more talent to scare people at wide reciever, I would have them at the top spot. But the giants have a lot of depth all across the board on offense, and I really can't complain. And their defense is out of this world. I feel as though I could stop anyone with the Giants. I really do. Their inside linebackers are very fast and LT is always a threat when in use.

3 - 49ers - The Niners are very good on offense. You need something, they have it. Their inside linebackers are very slow though. And that's a huge knock in my game. In fact, they are just too slow if you ask me. That's a huge reason as to why I don't like them as much as the other two teams. Houston's inside linebackers aren't anything to holla home about, but they just make it above the cut to be acceptable. The niners do not. And since I'm not a fan of using Safeties, I never really use Ronnie Lott.

[bruddog]

QB Bills is reasonable enough???!!!! Yeah I'd say so he is tied for the best PC in the game with 81. He's the best pure passer in the game along with Montana. You can make a case for Moon perhaps with the extra PS.

IAnd QB Bills is a reasonable enough QB to make things happen in a very balanced attack, easily the most balanced in the game (one could make an argument for the Rams here maybe...) Defensively the Bills have enough players to make some stops, and their secondary is capable of generating turnovers. Oodmes and Kelso usually come through with a turnover on a consistent basis, and you know how frustrating that can be.

[bruddog]

If you allow WR at rb this completely changes the dynamics for a few teams. Houston being one of them. Likewise for RB at WR.

I chose Houston as my top team in tecmo bowl.

1 - Houston - I just love their offense. Hill, Givens, Jeffries and Duncan, how can you not be happy with this quartet of recievers. Sure Jerry Rice and John Taylor are a formidable duo, but there's just so much depth at WR for me to rank those two above my quartet. One offense, I usually move Hill to running back to give me that speed element I'm lacking to make the running game a threat and move White to a Wide Receiver position I wouldn't depend on. All four pass plays I'd choose would be plays I can successfully complete passes REGARDLESS of my opponent picking my play. I use the pitch out plays from the spread formation for my run plays to provide some protection against people using the nose tackle to sack my QB on the snap. I'd have Houston head and shoulders above anybody else if Ray Childress was located at one of the inside linebacker spots instead of the outside, but hey, we can't have it all. All in all, Houston is my favorite team to select in head to head competition.

2 - Giants - You know, the giants are a close second to Houston. If only the giants had more talent to scare people at wide reciever, I would have them at the top spot. But the giants have a lot of depth all across the board on offense, and I really can't complain. And their defense is out of this world. I feel as though I could stop anyone with the Giants. I really do. Their inside linebackers are very fast and LT is always a threat when in use.

3 - 49ers - The Niners are very good on offense. You need something, they have it. Their inside linebackers are very slow though. And that's a huge knock in my game. In fact, they are just too slow if you ask me. That's a huge reason as to why I don't like them as much as the other two teams. Houston's inside linebackers aren't anything to holla home about, but they just make it above the cut to be acceptable. The niners do not. And since I'm not a fan of using Safeties, I never really use Ronnie Lott.

[Louae]

If you allow WR at rb this completely changes the dynamics for a few teams. Houston being one of them. Likewise for RB at WR.

Why wouldn't you allow a WR to move to RB? I thought anything goes when you're ranking teams.

[Stadawim]

Oh, some people here... You'd think switching the RB and WR would cause the Antichrist to arise.

But see? This is why this question will forever be debated and debated even with same cartridges but different users. You'd think that all those carts were mass produced so that you could safely say that after everyone has played the game enough they could all be at the relative same level and come up with the same answers. And this topic does a good job of showing that.

But i still don't see how peeps think the 49ers are 'it'.

Try and analyze it from all angles:

When you play against ____ regardless of whether your opponent is COM or MAN, how good are you against them? Are you as good against them as you are with them?

When you play with ____, how are your teammates on both sides of the ball? Are you the whole reason they play the way they do? If you're the 49ers and you be Lott on D the whole time, can you trust your teammates to pick up the slack? If you're the Giants and you run with Otttttis, are you creating enough of a threat that your opponent has to respect both aspects of your offense?

That last one is the primary reason i think the Giants best. While Ronnie Lott is great, there is NO WAY i consider the rest of that defense as trustworthy on their own as the Giants'. Now, again that may be individual style of play. With my button pushing ability, i can either throw Ronnie off with my offender, or make the tackle with Ronnie on the offender 98% of the time. And while Roger Craig is a good RB, i seriously doubt his Tecmo caliber is as high as Otttttis' PLUS the fact that Ottttttis works with 'the little Meggett'. And while Rathman is a burden, i just don't see him as completing the running tandem like Meggett completes theirs.

And taking on these notes, i wouldn't even put the 49ers second. Third to the Bills is where they belong. Apologies to the mighty Oilers, but you guys NEED A DEFENSE. Same to you - Eagles & Dolphins. Apologies to the Bears, but you guys need to take one more step away from mediocrity (while the defense is SOLID and the RB situation is as well, you can NOT trust their QBs & WRs). Same to you - Raiders, Chiefs & Bengals.

[BO FB Offtackle Left]

"Same to you, Eagles and Dolphins"? The Eagles have one of the better defenses in the game. White and Simmons are almost as fearsome a duo as Long and Townsend. Then you've got Brown as one of the best ILBs in the game, the most important position in Tecmo, and Joyner if your opponent likes to use pitch outs or R&S. The secondary doesn't have star power, but Allen is serviceable with 44 MS and 50 Int. The other 3 are slower, but one has 50 Int and the other has 56. Not great, but good enough to come up with a key pick if you hurry your opponent all the time.

And the Dolphins, ever hear of John Offerdahl?

[bruddog]

These incorrect facts are quite amusing. Ooooh White and Simmons. They dont do shit against any of the good OL's.

If WR can really move to RB then the Niners and Oilers are second to none. Stick in Hill and Rice at RB and now you have Neal and Barry at RB respectively and still have plenty of JJ power.

Plus I'd much rather have the Niners secondary than the Giants purely b/c of Waymer.

WTF Ronnie and Otis are effectively the same back?? They both have 50ms. Sorry Otis 56RS and 88HP does not have me shaking in my pants.

Apologies to the bills but they need a secondary.

I guess I'll have to play you young grasshoppers and show you the errors

of your ways.

[LouisOliver]

That last one is the primary reason i think the Giants best. While Ronnie Lott is great, there is NO WAY i consider the rest of that defense as trustworthy on their own as the Giants'. Now, again that may be individual style of play. With my button pushing ability, i can either throw Ronnie off with my offender, or make the tackle with Ronnie on the offender 98% of the time. And while Roger Craig is a good RB, i seriously doubt his Tecmo caliber is as high as Otttttis' PLUS the fact that Ottttttis works with 'the little Meggett'. And while Rathman is a burden, i just don't see him as completing the running tandem like Meggett completes theirs.

And taking on these notes, i wouldn't even put the 49ers second. Third to the Bills is where they belong. Apologies to the mighty Oilers, but you guys NEED A DEFENSE. Same to you - Eagles & Dolphins. Apologies to the Bears, but you guys need to take one more step away from mediocrity (while the defense is SOLID and the RB situation is as well, you can NOT trust their QBs & WRs). Same to you - Raiders, Chiefs & Bengals.

The niners defense has always played exceedingly well for me. It's not an issue of me being "super-dominant" or whatev. Against the run you have a solid front 7 plus Lott in the box; against the pass you have Waymer and Lott sprinting around as well as two decent cbs. It's a top flight unit if you have any clue as to how to play with safties (which anyone whos ever played against another person should).

And I dunno how you'd ever come to believe that the Bills are better than the niners. Where are they better? Rice can be a better back than Thos and then the pass attacks are still at least even. And on D would you really rather have your star at DL backed up by C. Bennett than have the Lott/Waymer/Haley trio?

[SilviaTarmack]

A better argument would be what is the toughest team to win with.

I want the best challenge I can get when I play the CPU, and that includes using my backups as starters and still going undefeated and winning the superbowl.

[Stadawim]

bo, you're pickin' the differences here. You said it yourself;

The Eagles have one of the better defenses in the game...The secondary doesn't have star power, but Allen is serviceable...The other 3 are slower...Not great, but good enough

OK. So? And that just serves to prove the point of the thread - who's the BEST. Obviously if they're "not great", "serviceable" & just "better" than they're not the best, are they? There is no way after playing with either of them in various situations would i put the Eagles over the Giants, 49ers, Bills, Bears, etc. Maybe even a few others.

And, correct me if i'm wrong, but the title to the thread is best TEAM right? So if it's not best man, why would John Offerdahl matter? Even if it WAS best man, why would he matter? While he is good, one man does not a team make. And if you think Offerdahl can make the Dolphins' D stand up to the D of the other top tier teams, WOW you're disillusioned. I wonder how many of us here could run through Offerdahl on our worst days?

WTF Ronnie and Otis are effectively the same back?? They both have 50ms. Sorry Otis 56RS and 88HP does not have me shaking in my pants.

I'd have an answer to this bruddog, but i'm not sure what the hell it means. I never said Ronnie and Otttttis are the same back. I just said when i played i could essentially do the same thing with either player. If they went head to head, i could throw off/tackle either. And if 88HP doesn't have you 'shaking' as it were, i don't know what will because there ain't many others with it much higher. EDIT: Not that you should be 'shaking', but if it were something tangible 88HP should certainly be one of the numbers that does make you. What IS more scary then? 19HP?

And see Louis, this is why it's an opinion thread. Ok, you can use the 49er defense. Well, maybe i'm not as effective as yours. Or maybe i just make them MORE ineffective when i play AGAINST them. But as the top unit, i don't see it. I grant, maybe i was a little premature with ranking the Bills over them. But why don't YOU see it? What's so hard to see? "Rice can be a better back than Thurman"? Maybe so, but who's gonna take Rice's place? And 'can' doesn't cut it here. For the sake of the arguement, i assumed leaving starters in place for fair comparison which makes that moot anyway. And would i rather have Smith & Bennett than Lott, Waymer & Haley? Not only yeah, but HELL YEAH. What's Haley? What's he gonna do for me? More to the point, what's Waymer gonna do for me (especially that Lott doesn't)? Now i'm not saying the Bills secondary is fantabulous or whatever. But i AM saying i trust their front seven a helluva lot more than... well, just about everyone else in the league. And i HATE the Bills!

My argument stems from a simple observation: i can move against the 'vaunted' 49ers defense quite well. I can't do so against some others (Giants, Bills, Bears). So there's where my votes go.

[malferds]

I MADE UP A PERSONALIZED RATING SYSTEM USING MICROSOFT EXCEL!!!

yah it took me a long time to get the formulas the way i wanted but i rated each player, team, offence, defence taking into consideration the use of star player, well considering too much to write or read about. yah ive been sick for the last 5 days and off work not much else to do.

[LouisOliver]

And see Louis, this is why it's an opinion thread. Ok, you can use the 49er defense. Well, maybe i'm not as effective as yours. Or maybe i just make them MORE ineffective when i play AGAINST them. But as the top unit, i don't see it. I grant, maybe i was a little premature with ranking the Bills over them. But why don't YOU see it? What's so hard to see? "Rice can be a better back than Thurman"? Maybe so, but who's gonna take Rice's place? And 'can' doesn't cut it here. For the sake of the arguement, i assumed leaving starters in place for fair comparison which makes that moot anyway. And would i rather have Smith & Bennett than Lott, Waymer & Haley? Not only yeah, but HELL YEAH. What's Haley? What's he gonna do for me? More to the point, what's Waymer gonna do for me (especially that Lott doesn't)? Now i'm not saying the Bills secondary is fantabulous or whatever. But i AM saying i trust their front seven a helluva lot more than... well, just about everyone else in the league. And i HATE the Bills!

My argument stems from a simple observation: i can move against the 'vaunted' 49ers defense quite well. I can't do so against some others (Giants, Bills, Bears). So there's where my votes go.

I understand this is an opinion topic. It's just your original argument against the Niners seemed to be, "I can deal with Lott and the rest of the D isn't intimidating." Huh? Just Lott specifically? You can't throw off LT? Does the caliber of drones make *that* big a difference against you assuming they don't suck? Just wondering.

But yeah, Bills. The "can" in Rice being a better back than Thos. is a matter of choice. "Do I choose to run three plays with Rice?" I say no (I like him streaking down the sideline on each passing play), but if you say yes then he's a better back than Thos. because he's better in every stat except hitting power and I don't see Thurman shrugging anyone off with his 25 HP.

Who replaces Rice? Really no one, but even without him the passing attack would be better than the Bills. Reed *is* a little better than Taylor, but when you add in Brent Jones' superior hands at WR and Rice's 81 out of the backfield the pass attack is still better than the Bills' who just don't have the hand. A better back + a better passing game is a better offense any way you slice it. I guess you assumed Rice at WR only though, in which case the argument just becomes "is it better to have the best hookup in the game and a decent back or a really good back and a really good passing attack" which is pure opinion.

D i guess we'll run into a wall again. I guess you'd just honestly rather have your star at DE than FS. While I like Smith, this blows my mind. It's so easy to isolate a lineman with playbook selection. It's tough to keep Lott out of the picture. Bennett doesn't completely outclass Haley, who is a useful for killing certain plays (he's better than a lot of linebackers). Waymer gives you a lot of flexibility with conditions (you will almost always have an amazing saftey) and with which side of the field you want to play on (there's really not a running play that can beat Lott AND Waymer).

PS. I can out button press everyone I've ever played against. Maybe that's an issue here, though I don't know why it would cause us to disagree. wevr

[Stadawim]

It's all good, Louis. I wasn't trying to back my argument, per se. I was just trying to understand why there wasn't an almost equal amount of props to some team like the Giants. It's just been in my experience that the 49ers are just a bit below the level of the Giants. For whatever reasons. And it feels to me like the Bills & 49ers are awfully close in capabilities. The key matchups are all well spoken for. Kelly/Montana, Rice/Reed, Taylor/Lofton, Thomas/Craig, Jones/McKellar. OK, so the TEs may be in doubt. Even still, they've played pretty even to me. Any season i've played usually sees Rice lead WRs, but Thomas lead RBs and Kelly & Montana swap top spots in the QB stats as well. Seems equal to me. And with Smith usually at the top of the sack stat while there's typically not a 49er present, i believe that gets balanced out.

Dealing with Lott i DO consider a primary concern because when i play against them, nobody else really causes me problems. That's not a boast, just an observation. Even peeps i play with have not had as much comparable trouble (that's key, here) with the Niners as with others. Granted, not many others but others still. Yes, i would rather the star be someone other than a DB. Why? Because since i primarily will be a DB, i want the CPU to control somebody else who can cause as much trouble up front as i can in back. Watch with teams like the Giants, Steelers, Bills. Teams with good LBs and DLs. You can't do as much as you could against any regular team because you have no idea how much time you have; those guys can barrel down at you at any time. I like the added variables they provide. I like NOT using the best defender so that he's free to cause terror and i can safely pick the second best and still aid to the terror.

And i'm a speed masher myself, as i think i've said. That's why i said that when faced with an LT, Lott or facing them WITH Ottttttis or Roger or Thurman i don't see the trouble as i can throw any of 'em off or tackle any of 'em when it comes to it.

[BO FB Offtackle Left]

bo, you're pickin' the differences here. You said it yourself;

The Eagles have one of the better defenses in the game...The secondary doesn't have star power, but Allen is serviceable...The other 3 are slower...Not great, but good enough

OK. So? And that just serves to prove the point of the thread - who's the BEST. Obviously if they're "not great", "serviceable" & just "better" than they're not the best, are they? There is no way after playing with either of them in various situations would i put the Eagles over the Giants, 49ers, Bills, Bears, etc. Maybe even a few others.

Oh I didn't mean to imply the D was better than any of those teams. Sorry, I should have clarified. I just took issue with you lumping them in with the Oilers' D. I was really just knee-jerk responding to the one sentence, not adding to the thread. After those 4, Pitt, and the Raiders, I would say the Eagles' D is 7th, though. Maybe even 6th, because the Raiders have no LBs, which I think is a more serious issue than a poor secondary. So I think being 7th out of 28th deserves more than "You guys need a defense." My point was they have a defense. Maybe if you had said they need a secondary, I'd go along with that. The funny thing is I'm not even an Eagles fan. I just think they're one of the more fun teams to play with in Tecmo.

About Miami, yeah nevermind, you're right.

[Nameless Loser]

The 49ers' defense is pretty good, but you have to be very skillful with the run-first defense, and be able to get Matt Millen into coverage most of the time the other team throws it. Also, if the opposing team has a good offensive line, their effectiveness diminishes a lot, especially since the QB usually runs to the top, away from the excellent pass rushers in the middle and bottom of the line.

If the other guy can pick on Darryl Pollard you're screwed as well...but if you can cover him up, you can hold them to two scores in a fair number of games.