Jump to content

Who IS the best team in TSB3?


TecSpectre

Recommended Posts

(I have attached the Book of Armanents file that the NFTGL uses for determining player/team value)


 


Certainly everyone has their favorite team in the NFL and their favorite teams in the game when they play their buddies.


 


But who is the best?


 


The top 5 teams in the attached file are: San Francisco, Dallas, Miami, Denver and Pittsburgh.


 


Do you disagree with any of these? If so, who? If not, of these teams, who do you prefer?


 


Personally, I would take Denver and Pittsburgh over Miami. I would definitely take San Fran over everyone though. Dallas is amazing, but I feel that they are not very deep on defense. Dallas has a stud Safety and a top 10 corner back, but the LBs are weak. San Fran gives you Merton Hanks, Tim McDonald and Ken Norton, each of which you can just take and run into anyone. Steve Young also, to me, breaks the game. A QB as mobile as Young (or Cunningham) adds so much to an offense that it makes it very difficult for a defense to overcome, especially when you have a hard hitting running game like San Fran and the receiving options the niners have at every position on the field.


 


Miami ranks last of the five, for me, because the defense just isn't as good as the other four teams. It's still an excellent defense however. The other issue is that the running game in Miami just isn't very good. You might say that with Dan Marino, why would you even care to run, and you're probably right... but I am a believer that you should be doing everything on offense. Not just running every play or passing every play.


 


Pittsburgh's offense is REALLY bad... but the defense is SO good and has the One True Rod. Rod Woodson is so broken in the game that he should be able to get the offense in scoring position, if not scoring a td, every time your opponent kicks off... which, of course, shouldn't happen very often with that defense. ROD f$cking Woodson! And I could yell Bam all day long with that offense.


The Book of Armaments Original.xls

Edited by TecSpectre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you are saying that assuming MAN vs MAN, injuries turned on, no playbook changes, allowing QB runs, and allowing kick/punt returns with default returners(?):


 


1.  SF


2.  Dallas


3.  Pitt


4.  Den


5.  Miami


 


Right?  I can buy that, although I have zero MAN vs MAN experience.  I find MIA to be pretty tough in MAN vs COM.  If you can get to Marino, it's easy.  If not, it's hard.  COM controlled Parmalee and Byars are actually a great combo.  But in MAN I bet they are kinda sucky.


 


Do you think SF and Dallas have equally good playbooks, or is one better than the other?  I have more trouble with Dallas' playbook in MAN vs COM.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean... playing with injuries off is like playing hockey with no off-sides...


 


I do also factor in playbooks. I think Dallas has overall probably the best playbook in the game, but the niners playbook is also fantastic, albeit different.


 


I've also never put any credence in limiting who can and cannot be used at kick or punt returns. I've always taken it on myself to get good enough to stop even the best guys.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I'd say DEN #1, and probably PIT or DAL #2.  MIA I am not sure belongs there.  Definitely good players on the team, but they don't seem to live up to expectations.  SF I actually haven't played with a lot, but I'll assume they are Top 5.  I'd seriously put PHI or ATL over MIA.  PHI to round out the top 5?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh...for whatever reason I don't remember thinking Denver was a powerhouse team though it's been years.


I'd say the top 2 is a toss up between Dallas and San Fran depending on how much you value Dallas' running game vs San Fran's Steve Young advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DEN is solid everywhere.  They have the Tecmo Frankenstein monster in Rod 'the Lesser God' Bernstein (they made this guy insanely good for whatever reason.  I guess if your name is Rod the Tecmo creators will likely offer you some extra voltage).  Cheap catch Anthony Miller seems to come down with everything, and Shannon Sharpe is also a great secondary receiving option.  Elway can run and has a bit of HP, and is also equipped with a cannon.  On defense they have two exceptional MAN options in LB Simon Fletcher and S Steve Atwater.  It took me a long time to realize how good this team actually is.  But they have proven it over the long haul (to me at least).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've gotta say, I'm with cheap on this one.  I don't know enough about the base playbooks to factor that in.  And I think on paper Dallas and San Francisco look better.  But if I could pick any team to play a human with, it'd be Denver.  There are the reasons he already mentioned, which I wholeheartedly agree with.  And then there's Atwater returning kicks: if he isn't quite as good as Rod, is a damned close second. 


 


The top four for me are crystal-clear:


#1 Denver


#2 Dallas


#3 San Francisco


#4 Pittsburgh


 


I'm not sure who belongs in the fifth spot.  All the candidates are pretty flawed: Philly (lack of a defensive stud), Kansas City (few offensive weapons), Miami (no RB and you're stuck using a CB on defense), Atlanta (pretty solid, but lack of anything really special).  I guess I'd take Philly, too, but I'm not all that confident I'd be right in doing so.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

 And then there's Atwater returning kicks: if he isn't quite as good as Rod, is a damned close second. 

 

You can do the same thing with Tim McDonald in San Fran.

Floyd is Berstein minus 6 ms + Floyd is at least usable as a backup

Steve Young > Elway

Jerry Rice > Anthony Miller and 49ers have 3 viable WRs

Merton Hanks > Steve Atwater

 

MDP is better than anyone the 49ers have on the line though

 

Broncos are good...just don't think they're better than the 49ers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's impossible to deny SFs talent.  I agree with what you say in terms of Young and Rice.  Also, in that SF has tremendous options at KR. 


 


First Offense:  Overall, DEN has a more balanced passing attack than SF, but that might not matter b/c Rice is the best WR in the game, at least if one simply considers his insane 81 RE.  When combined with Young, this is an apparent lethal combination, and perhaps all you need.  This is just from personal experience, but I've always found SFs run game a bit weak (and again I admit I have not played w this team a lot).  Bernstein for whatever reason has 56 RP and this seems to tip the scales in his favor, as far as speed goes. Miller isn't all that far behind Rice, as 69 RE is elite, as it follows is 81.  81 is insane, but 69 RE with the speed Miller has will get the job done at a high level.  SF has the better OL. 


 


Defensively:  I just noticed that SFs overall INT numbers are lacking, save for Hanks, but he can be a one man wrecking crew.  I'd give DEN the slight nod at LB (Fletcher and Jones v Norton), and the nod in the secondary, as Atwater and Hanks are comparable (although Hanks has way better INT).  SFs second best DB has 44 INT, but McDonald is elite in terms of speed and HP.  The secondary for each team is close in talent.  49ers have more MAN options in the secondary, in Hanks and McDonald.  DENs INT numbers aren't great, with three guys at 50 being the tops.  Two other players have 44 INT, so depending on condition this can be a solid unit.  I guess the same can be said of SF.  In AVG, though, DEN has a slight advantage.  However, a good defensive MAN player with Hanks, McDonald, Atwater, Fletcher, etc. can turn the tide.  The DL: SF gets the nod, in spite of DENs MDP, as you mention, who is the best DL from either team.


 


Overall:  Close call.  Each team has elite players at key positions.  I really think for the TOP 4:  DEN, DAL, SF, PIT (whichever way you slice it), the margin of talent is narrow.  I'd suspect a lot of competitive games between these teams.  I have a hard time believing any one of these teams would absolutely dominate any other, say if you played a seven game series. 


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Knobbe, sounds like a challenge!  Get your TSB III hat on and let's duke it out!  Me, with Denver, you with puny, puny San Fran!


 


For real, though, I admit that San Fran is numerically superior to Denver.  I've been tinkering with 100-point-scale TSB III ratings for a few years, and every system I've ever done actually shows Dallas as the best team ratings-wise, with San Francisco 2nd.  Miami, in my system, comes out 3rd, with Denver 4th, and Pittsburgh 5th.


 


But I still think I'd beat more people heads-up with Denver than any other team.


 




You can do the same thing with Tim McDonald in San Fran.




 


Minor disagreement here: the MS-HP combo seems far and away to be the most important in kick returning, and Atwater's 63-69 combo is devastating.  63 MS guys are so hard to stop, for example, that we've banned them in the TLL completely, and then you throw 69 HP(!) on top of that, and it is deadly.  As an overall player, Hanks and McDonald grade out pretty close to Atwater, but that particular combo makes Atwater a MUCH more effective returner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would take GB over DEN. I have a hard time with Denver's defense when it comes to stopping the run, but then again the Packers can get gashed hard by good running backs. I don't know really, Denver seems to always do well when the computer plays it out while I do one team for the season.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

     I wouldn't exactly call DEN a trendy pick.  Most people, I don't think would pick DEN as their #1 choice.  Only DF and myself, on this thread anyway,have given our seal of approval (granted that is like 2/5 people or so for this thread, but still, DEN is a team that is not often talked about as being one of the best teams in the game).  I'd guess most people would choose DAL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oddly enough, I've always thought of GNB as a worse version of DEN. Reggie is a huge upgrade on the DL, obviously, over MDP, but both have fairly mediocre Dlines with one dude who can dominate and take over games at times. Butler is like Atwater, but worse, Favre is like Elway but worse, Jackson is comparable to Sharpe (might be a little better, don't have the #s in front of me), DEN OL is better, and DEN clearly blows the Pack out of the water at RB, WR, and LB. But that's it. GNB actually grades out as one of the weaker teams in TSBIII in my ratings.

Sent from my SGH-T999L using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Knobbe, sounds like a challenge!  Get your TSB III hat on and let's duke it out!  Me, with Denver, you with puny, puny San Fran!

 

For real, though, I admit that San Fran is numerically superior to Denver.  I've been tinkering with 100-point-scale TSB III ratings for a few years, and every system I've ever done actually shows Dallas as the best team ratings-wise, with San Francisco 2nd.  Miami, in my system, comes out 3rd, with Denver 4th, and Pittsburgh 5th.

 

But I still think I'd beat more people heads-up with Denver than any other team.

 

 

Minor disagreement here: the MS-HP combo seems far and away to be the most important in kick returning, and Atwater's 63-69 combo is devastating.  63 MS guys are so hard to stop, for example, that we've banned them in the TLL completely, and then you throw 69 HP(!) on top of that, and it is deadly.  As an overall player, Hanks and McDonald grade out pretty close to Atwater, but that particular combo makes Atwater a MUCH more effective returner.

 

I used to think I was pretty good in TSB3.  No idea if I actually was and I certainly don't play it very much these days.  No doubt you would crush me initially with any matchup of teams with similar talents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GBs defense is super weak, overall, and they have zero run game to speak of. 

 

 

Totally disagree there. I can make Levens and Bennett have a lot of break outs with running. Levens is a very good back if you put him as the main HB instead of FB, the only down side is both of them get injured a lot. I have never went a whole season without them sustaining injuries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I respect your opinion DeBerg, but I bet if you look at sheer ATT numbers for RBs across the league, the Packers will have the worst stable of running backs.  Without looking, I am boldly claiming they have the worst run game in the entirety of TSB III.  And if that is too strong, I will say at the most they are not above the bottom five.


 


The defense speaks for itself:  Reggie White is a beast as everyone knows, but again, I bet the Packer LBs are Top 5 worst in the league, if not the worst.  Maybe someone like the Saints has worse LBs.  Butler is a poor man's Atwater as DF mentioned.  The secondary overall is so weak.  The DEN offense, with just Miller alone, would pick that secondary apart in a hurry.


 


well, this is fun anyway....nice to revisit TSB three, OG

Edited by CheapCatch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I respect your opinion DeBerg, but I bet if you look at sheer ATT numbers for RBs across the league, the Packers will have the worst stable of running backs.  Without looking, I am boldly claiming they have the worst run game in the entirety of TSB III.  And if that is too strong, I will say at the most they are not above the bottom five.

 

The defense speaks for itself:  Reggie White is a beast as everyone knows, but again, I bet the Packer LBs are Top 5 worst in the league, if not the worst.  Maybe someone like the Saints has worse LBs.  Butler is a poor man's Atwater as DF mentioned.  The secondary overall is so weak.  The DEN offense, with just Miller alone, would pick that secondary apart in a hurry.

 

well, this is fun anyway....nice to revisit TSB three, OG

 

 

I am a little biased cause I love the Packers team on here even though the ones on TSB II are a little bit better. You have Sterling Sharpe on all 3 rosters for TSB II but the playbook is a little sloppy compared to the flexibility on TSB III's. So I will take the better playbook, even though Sterling blows away all the receivers on this version.

 

It's impossible to keep those RB's healthy during a season for GB, and even when they are healthy, Favre will go down and Ty Detmer is a big joke on offense. If the team had Sterling or Antonio Freeman, they would easily be a top 5 offense IMO. Plus on TSB II, they have Reggie Cobb as a running back on the 93 or 94 team (or both, can't remember) and I'd easily take him over Bennett and Levens.

Edited by DeBerg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Knobbe pinned this topic
  • 5 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 months later...

I have only played the original Tecmo Super Bowl game. Is III based off the '94 players with the '95 team schedule? Yeah that was the season that the Niners were trying to build a team through free agency that could beat Dallas and the Cowboys were starting to lose some of their depth through free agency (and players like Ken Norton signed with San Fran which hurt Dallas even more).

 

Are the Packers very good in this game? That was the time period that the Pack was really starting to come on (though it would take them a couple years to seal the deal with a Super Bowl victory). It's funny the 49ers put so much focus on building a team that could match up with Dallas that they turned it into a team that didn't match up that well against Green Bay. And the Packers beat the 49ers three straight years in the playoffs because of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/4/2020 at 12:16 PM, sony12 said:

I have only played the original Tecmo Super Bowl game. Is III based off the '94 players with the '95 team schedule? Yeah that was the season that the Niners were trying to build a team through free agency that could beat Dallas and the Cowboys were starting to lose some of their depth through free agency (and players like Ken Norton signed with San Fran which hurt Dallas even more).

 

Are the Packers very good in this game? That was the time period that the Pack was really starting to come on (though it would take them a couple years to seal the deal with a Super Bowl victory). It's funny the 49ers put so much focus on building a team that could match up with Dallas that they turned it into a team that didn't match up that well against Green Bay. And the Packers beat the 49ers three straight years in the playoffs because of it.

 

This is all pretty on point.

 

The rosters were set post 94 and pre 95 after the rookie draft but before the pre season had started and FA had finished.

 

So there are a bunch of roster inconsistencies with both 94 and 95, especially regarding rookies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Knobbe unpinned this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...