Just on the 92 & 00 comparison, both sets of backlines were all representatives albeit I think what PF is getting at is that 92 were all current or recent reps. where as the 2000 players were all a year off such honours.
It's interesting because both sides were so different. 92 was really flamboyant but versatile enough to be able to grind which is what sealed their victory. Where as 00 was all about the grind and you won't find much better in premiership history at it. They applied that gameplan to a tee and had some of the best in the biz to do so but what decides it here for me is how much the 00 Broncos relied on unlimited interchanges. When that was brought in, we lost our way and weren't the powerhouse we were that season.
92 because they could adapt. I reckon 92 vs. 98 is a better comparison in any case. Both played similar brands and both had different strengths and weaknesses.
96 Dragons vs. 98 Bulldogs is an awesome comparison. I preferred Polla-Mounter's form to Mundine, thought Price & Britt stood up more than any Dragons forward & Silva was a bigger threat at the back. Depending on the mood, Dogs by a miracle conversion from the sideline in the last minute of extra time.
I like Coyne but ET could play 1-5 and was good in every position. Coyne was a reliable player, very much in the mould of Bowman which would make a fairer comparison but ET on a whole other level.
Belcher overall was more reliable than Mullins and played a bigger role for his side. Mullins is a better highlights package player but I don't think he was the best fullback in the world as long as Belcher.
EDIT: Ahh new posts.
Agreed with Lazo, achieved more success elsewhere although it's extremely close.
I'll echo Mark Graham vs. Paul Sironen