Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
ESPN.com ranking of every Super Bowl team (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter AB in DC
- Start date
David Yudkin
Footballguy
01 Pats @ 47 and 01 Rams @ 21 should elicit some interesting responses.
Godsbrother
Footballguy
Interesting...
As much as it pains me to say so, the 91 Redskins are a top 5 team. This team, based on one season only, not the team's performance in an era, is as dominant as any team ever. The 91 Skins only lost one meaningful game (as usual, to the Cowboys 
), but that misstep aside, they hammered everyone else. Their point differential for the regular season, as well as their complete domination during the playoffs, puts them in the stratosphere of all time, single season great teams.
Also, the 72 Dolphins at #7 is way too low.
), but that misstep aside, they hammered everyone else. Their point differential for the regular season, as well as their complete domination during the playoffs, puts them in the stratosphere of all time, single season great teams.Also, the 72 Dolphins at #7 is way too low.
H.K.
Footballguy
MarshallRob
Footballguy
Yeah. The writers complain about the Dolphins easy schedule and the fact that all their postseason wins were close. So the next year, with almost the exact same roster, they play a much harder schedule and blow everyone away in the playoffs yet that team gets ranked 21st?Some pretty twisted logic in the justification, too.
H.K.
Footballguy
Of course their schedule was the easiset. The Dolphins did not have to play themselves, so they couldn't possibly play against the #1 offense or # 1 defense. A team with the #7 offense and # 5 defense can play opponents better than them in those categories and be rewarded in this analysis because they are then credited with a "harder" schedule.
That's silly, since they are compared against other conference champions who also had very high rankings. And ESPN measured strength of schedule based on opposing record, not opposing rankings. So your comments don't hold water. You can apply that same logic to every team on that list.
Last edited by a moderator:
H.K.
Footballguy
That's just it, you can't. The Dolphins were the only team to be first in all four categories. eta: I did not see how they defined SOS, just this blurb:
"When composing the rankings, we considered myriad factors: offensive and defensive rankings, strength of schedule, record against teams .500 or better, point differential, postseason performance and, perhaps most importantly, the presence of difference-making players and coaches."
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not disagreeing that their SOS measure is flawed, though I note that it's not flawed in a way that biases against the Dolphins compared to other teams on the list.
What I'm saying is that your logic is backwards. You're saying they were #1 on offense and defense, and hence their SOS will appear artificially low.
I'm saying that their SOS is low, and hence their ranking on offense and defense will appear artificially high.
What I'm saying is that your logic is backwards. You're saying they were #1 on offense and defense, and hence their SOS will appear artificially low.
I'm saying that their SOS is low, and hence their ranking on offense and defense will appear artificially high.
Last edited by a moderator:
dparker713
Footballguy
The 85 Bears really should top that list.
H.K.
Footballguy
How is their SOS low? For all we know the teams comprising the NFL in 1971 gave the league its most competitive landscape ever, but the Dolphins still beat everyone. It's a completely subjective argument, especially without ESPN revealing how they defined SOS.
Liquid Tension
Footballguy
The SB was really 17-0 and that is pretty dominant. Undefeated is undefeated and because of that they deserve credit and simply can't be below top 5. I could see an argument that they should be #1 because they are the only team to go undefeated and while I wouldn't agree with a #1 ranking I could see the point.Yeah. The writers complain about the Dolphins easy schedule and the fact that all their postseason wins were close. So the next year, with almost the exact same roster, they play a much harder schedule and blow everyone away in the playoffs yet that team gets ranked 21st?Some pretty twisted logic in the justification, too.
Except that there's no evidence for this whatsoever.
What that schedule -- and only having to play 14 games instead of 16 -- I would bet that at least three other Super Bowl teams would have gone undefeated too.
Umm, all of these arguments -- pro and con -- are subjective. What's your point?
It's pretty clear from the numbers they present that SOS = average opponent winning percentage. That is the usual definition of the term, after all.
thesurfshop19
Footballguy
I know it's counter to the "one year at a time" rankings, but the one team that I think is a bit overrated is the 1996 Packers.
Their points scored and allowed stats of course, #1 in both, make it impossible to really put together a truly legit argument against them, and my basis is admittedly slim.
I just think that the 1998 Broncos team was better than the 1997 Broncos team that beat the 1997 Packers in the Super Bowl, and I don't think the 1997 Packers were significantly worse than the 1996 version.
Honestly, compared to teams ranked below them -- particularly the 1991 Redskins and 1994 49ers -- their postseason run, while great, isn't on the same level IMO. I think the 2004 Patriots also have a good case of being a better team.
Interesting list, though. Good find!
Their points scored and allowed stats of course, #1 in both, make it impossible to really put together a truly legit argument against them, and my basis is admittedly slim.
I just think that the 1998 Broncos team was better than the 1997 Broncos team that beat the 1997 Packers in the Super Bowl, and I don't think the 1997 Packers were significantly worse than the 1996 version.
Honestly, compared to teams ranked below them -- particularly the 1991 Redskins and 1994 49ers -- their postseason run, while great, isn't on the same level IMO. I think the 2004 Patriots also have a good case of being a better team.
Interesting list, though. Good find!
They make that Charger team sound better than I remember them. I remember thinking at the time that they were probably the third best team in the AFC -- in a year when the class of the league was in the NFC.But it's pretty cool that the only team they lost to by more than a TD was the 49ers, who rank No. 11 overall in this thing.
H.K.
Footballguy
I see where they are trying to go with their argument but think about it: Losing to a team actually helps your opponents winning %, and that makes your schedule appear to be harder. It only makes sense that Miami would have opposition with a low winning percentage, especially during a 14 game season.Miami put every AFC East team in an 0-2 hole before facing the rest of its schedule, which only left 12 games. That means the Jets had to play .583 ball just to get to 7-7 and be considered mediocre. A mediocre Colts team could go 5-7 against everyone but the Dolphins and have a miserable .357 win %, which looks really bad.Seems like the Dolphins are getting penalized by their success, at least a little bt.
Fullback Fro
yesno
Go read why number 1 is number 1. The 85 bears did not have that good of offense. McMahon, pulease. Hack.
A very, very little bit. If they had lost one of their games, their SOS would increase by 1/(14^2) or .005. Or if it was a loss to a divisional rival, it would be .010. Not sure if ESPN is counting playoff games, but if so, the numbers would be even smaller. (BTW, for teams with a sixteen game schedule, one loss only adds .004 or .008)Now compare their .367 SOS with the other teams in the ESPN top ten:.457.473.449.426.457.508.475.492.504An extra five or ten thousandths really wouldn't make much difference.
Reaper
Footballguy
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
I would have put the '91 Redskins, the '94 49ers, and the '98 Broncos all higher, and moved the '99 Rams way down on the list.
Last edited by a moderator:
David Yudkin
Footballguy
One would think the winning team would be ranked higher than the losing team. if you read the writeup on the 01 Pats, they suggest that the Pats were worse than every team they beat in the postseason. If that were the case, wouldn't they merit more consideration given the teams they beat?
Another case of tortured logic -- most teams are given credit for beating teams that appeared (based on regular season stats and record) to be better teams. Only the '01 Pats did not.
BTW, in case you missed it, there was one other SB-winning team that ranked lower than the team they beat: the '68 Jets.
Frankly, there's definitely some logic to ranking a SB loser ahead of a winner if you think that the loser just had an off day, but if they were doing that, you'd think they might come up with more than two examples.
BTW, in case you missed it, there was one other SB-winning team that ranked lower than the team they beat: the '68 Jets.
Frankly, there's definitely some logic to ranking a SB loser ahead of a winner if you think that the loser just had an off day, but if they were doing that, you'd think they might come up with more than two examples.
Last edited by a moderator:
H.K.
Footballguy
Should the Dolphins have gone 10-4 with losses to each team in its division, their SOS jumps to .408. That's a forty point swing....which does make a big difference. As I stated earlier, poorer performance is rewarded by this criteria. It's counter intuitive.
thesurfshop19
Footballguy
This is true mathematically, but had they gone 10-4 they'd still have the easiest schedule of all of the above, and at 10-4 they wouldn't even be in this discussion.We're trying to parse out the difference between 14-0, 15-1, 14-2, and 13-3 here. Every little bit matters. The very fact that the Dolphins could have gone 7-7 and still have an easier schedule than the 1991 Redskins who went 14-2 (losing on a Hail Mary and a game they didn't care about) means something here.All that said, the 72 Dolphins should very much be at least in the debate as the best team ever, which it appears that they are.
OK, I am saying this for the last time today.We are comparing the zero-loss Dolphins to other great teams. Not to some 10-4 team that lost four divisional games.
The difference between the SOS of a 14-0 team and of a 15-1 team, all things being equal, is between 4 and 10 points.
The difference in actual SOS between the 1972 Dolphins and the two 15-1 teams at the top is over 120 points.
I trust that everyone reading this besides H.K. knows the difference. (And possibly, including H.K. given his history on this MB)
H.K.
Footballguy
ESPN disagrees with you. Here is their criteria:This is true mathematically, but had they gone 10-4 they'd still have the easiest schedule of all of the above, and at 10-4 they wouldn't even be in this discussion.
No mention of overall record in the evaluation, therefore in this scenario, the Dolphins would have been better suited to lose a few games and improve their position some.
thesurfshop19
Footballguy
I don't want toESPN disagrees with you. Here is their criteria:This is true mathematically, but had they gone 10-4 they'd still have the easiest schedule of all of the above, and at 10-4 they wouldn't even be in this discussion.
No mention of overall record in the evaluation, therefore in this scenario, the Dolphins would have been better suited to lose a few games and improve their position some.
, but come on ....If they had gone 10-4, the following factors would be affected in all likelihood based on worse play on the field:--offensive rankings
--defensive rankings
--record against .500+ teams
--point differential
Last edited by a moderator:
H.K.
Footballguy
Seriously, I get it. However, in this one situation, losing actually helps. Not by much, but it does. I find that to be flawed logic, even though I see the point of the data and what they want it to represent.
H.K.
Footballguy
In all likelihood, you are probably correct. But let's flip it around for a second. Say they really were 10-4, and none of those other factors changed. Mathematically I'll bet it is possible.In that event, people would probably use the Dolphins #1 rankings for points scored, total offense, points allowed, & total defense to support their claim that they are one of the greatest teams ever. Now people just gloss over those facts and their record and go straight to looking for negatives to try and discredit them.I find this to be fascinating: They won every game, but ESPN says they didn't win by enough....this is a negative when compared to teams that lost. I guess Herm Edwards was wrong, apparently they don't play to win the games.I don't want to, but come on ....If they had gone 10-4, the following factors would be affected in all likelihood based on worse play on the field:--offensive rankings--defensive rankings--record against .500+ teams--point differential
saintsfan
Footballguy
The list is OK, although I'm not sure both of the Bronco Super Bowl teams should be in the top 20.
Also, any NFC team that won the Super Bowl in the 80's and into the early 90's are going to be a bit overrated compared to the teams in the 70's because the AFC was a joke in the 80's and into the early 90's.
While the 1989 49ers get points for drubbing their opposition in the playoffs, in the Super Bowl, they played a pitiful Broncos team, while the '78 Steelers, for example, had to beat the '78 Cowboys who were an all time great team.
For my money, the '78 Steelers were the best team of all time because they beat the best team in the Super Bowl. Even the '85 Bears, as dominant as they were, beat a pathetic Pats squad in the Super Bowl. Let's face it, that Pats team had no business in the Super Bowl. They got lucky and beat the only team that could give the Bears a game that season, Dan Marino and the Dolphins.
Anyway, with the possible exception of not having the '78 Steelers #1, the list is pretty solid.
Also, any NFC team that won the Super Bowl in the 80's and into the early 90's are going to be a bit overrated compared to the teams in the 70's because the AFC was a joke in the 80's and into the early 90's.
While the 1989 49ers get points for drubbing their opposition in the playoffs, in the Super Bowl, they played a pitiful Broncos team, while the '78 Steelers, for example, had to beat the '78 Cowboys who were an all time great team.
For my money, the '78 Steelers were the best team of all time because they beat the best team in the Super Bowl. Even the '85 Bears, as dominant as they were, beat a pathetic Pats squad in the Super Bowl. Let's face it, that Pats team had no business in the Super Bowl. They got lucky and beat the only team that could give the Bears a game that season, Dan Marino and the Dolphins.
Anyway, with the possible exception of not having the '78 Steelers #1, the list is pretty solid.
Last edited by a moderator:
thesurfshop19
Footballguy
I see what you're saying here, I just don't think that the SOS factor is the one you should be focusing on because the 72 Dolphins' schedule was the easiest of every Super Bowl champion in history.You're saying they never lost. That's a fact.Others are saying that, yeah, they never lost, but had they been subjected to a tougher schedule, they might have. That's speculation.The speculation is based on the fact that, compared to other similar-caliber teams who also won the Super Bowl, their performance against good teams was not as good. Therefore ... had the 72 Dolphins been subjected to the same level of competition week-in and week-out as similar teams that didn't go undefeated, perhaps the story would have been different.Of course, some fans (legitimately so) feel that we're ranking what happened, not what could have or might have or should have happened. In this case, the 2001 Patriots should clearly be above the other 2001 teams they beat that people thought they were "not as good as".But other fans (also legitimately so) feel that when you're differentiating teams so tightly grouped as Super Bowl winners you have to take it to the next level to do the analysis.I think it's a good debate with no right answers.
thesurfshop19
Footballguy
I'm guessing that their relatively suspect defense is the main argument here, right? I think that's a legit point and one that the Broncos have generally been able to avoid because their defense came together at the right time in both seasons (particularly in 1998 when they allowed 4 field goals, a 1-yd TD drive following a blocked punt in the AFCC, a kickoff return TD in the Super Bowl, and a garbage time TD in the Super Bowl).I do think that the 1998 team belongs for sure. A 13-0 start as a defending champion is pretty impressive -- a feat that may never again be duplicated.In my opinion, the 1998 Broncos also have to be ahead of the 1999 Rams. They played a tougher schedule while being the defending champs, had a better record, and beat better teams in their final 2 playoff games by much more convincing margins.I think the closest match to the 1998 Broncos on the list is the 2004 Patriots, who I think were slightly better. The 2004 Patriots, statistically and tactically, match up very closely to the 1998 Jets who the Broncos beat in the AFC Championship (and easily could have lost to if not for a bunch of fluky plays) but Tom Brady over Testaverde, even given Vinny's great year, is a huge advantage.The 1998 Broncos also have to be considered fairly similar to the 1996 Packers, given that the two teams met in 1997 and the Broncos won.
Last edited by a moderator:
The_Man
Footballguy
As a Redskins fan, I can say that the 1987 Super Bowl XXII champion Redskins are wildly overrated at #30.
I think they might have been one of the most mediocre Super Bowl champs of all time. They were 11-4 only because their scab team went 3-0. They were 8-4 otherwise and only outscored opponents 290-245 in non-scab games.
Things just really broke right for them. For whatever reason, they matched up very well with that era's Bears -- they won at Chicago in the 86 playoffs and then again in the 87 divisional round. When #1 seed San Francisco inexplicably lost its divisional round game to the Wild Card Vikings, the Redskins ended up hosting the NFC Championship.
Then in the Super Bowl, they physically dominated the undersized Broncos and put up that ridiculous 35-point second quarter. When you tell the story of the 87 Redskins, it comes down to the scabs, the decision to bench Jay Schroeder for Doug Williams with 5 games left in the season, and some playoff flukes. This same team went on to post a 7-9 mark the next season.
I think they might have been one of the most mediocre Super Bowl champs of all time. They were 11-4 only because their scab team went 3-0. They were 8-4 otherwise and only outscored opponents 290-245 in non-scab games.
Things just really broke right for them. For whatever reason, they matched up very well with that era's Bears -- they won at Chicago in the 86 playoffs and then again in the 87 divisional round. When #1 seed San Francisco inexplicably lost its divisional round game to the Wild Card Vikings, the Redskins ended up hosting the NFC Championship.
Then in the Super Bowl, they physically dominated the undersized Broncos and put up that ridiculous 35-point second quarter. When you tell the story of the 87 Redskins, it comes down to the scabs, the decision to bench Jay Schroeder for Doug Williams with 5 games left in the season, and some playoff flukes. This same team went on to post a 7-9 mark the next season.
dparker713
Footballguy
The offense was overrated, but that defense is the best unit on either side of the ball that I've ever seen. The Super Bowl was a coronation, not a game.Fullback Fro said:
Limp Ditka
Footballguy
That offense led the league in scoring in 1985. Its also IMO that, while they would have never gotten out of the shadow cast by the best defense in the history of the game, they would have been seen in a much different light if McMahon could have actually played 16 games in a season.
Klecko HOF
Footballguy
Give the Pats their due. You do not travel on the road THREE consecutive weeks, win all three games convincingly, AND make a SuperBowl appearance without being a pretty good team.New England was the first Wildcard team I believe in NFL history to make the Superbowl.saintsfan said:
Michael Fox Fan
Footballguy
1996: The '96 Packers team was truly special. The team was decimated by injuries at WR (both Robert Brooks and Antonio Freeman were injured), which is why they had to go out and sign Bad Moon Rison, as well as rely heavily on an aging Don Beebe. Yet this offense still scored more than 30 points in 8 of its regular season games.....and also reached 30 points in each post-season game.I know it's counter to the "one year at a time" rankings, but the one team that I think is a bit overrated is the 1996 Packers.
Their points scored and allowed stats of course, #1 in both, make it impossible to really put together a truly legit argument against them, and my basis is admittedly slim.
I just think that the 1998 Broncos team was better than the 1997 Broncos team that beat the 1997 Packers in the Super Bowl, and I don't think the 1997 Packers were significantly worse than the 1996 version.
Honestly, compared to teams ranked below them -- particularly the 1991 Redskins and 1994 49ers -- their postseason run, while great, isn't on the same level IMO. I think the 2004 Patriots also have a good case of being a better team.
Interesting list, though. Good find!
Meanwhile the defense featured a stellar D-line that included Reggie White, Sean Jones, Santana Dotson and Gilbert Brown. The LBs were solid but not special, and the D-backfield included Pro Bowler Leroy Butler and veteran Eugene Robinson. The defense ranked #1 in yards allowed and held opponents to 10 points or fewer 9 times during the regular season. And only allowed 48 points in 3 playoff games.
Overall, a pretty strong performance. Oh yeah, they also had the 3-time NFL MVP, who threw for 3,899 yards, 39 TDs and only 13 INTs.
1997:
The '97 Packers team was lucky to make the Super Bowl. They struggled much of the year and never looked impressive. The defense ranked 20th in rushing yards allowed and 24th in rushing TDs allowed. The offense scored over 30 points 6 times (solid showing) and the defense held opponents to 10 points or fewer 6 times (also solid). Favre had a great year with 3,867 yards, 35 TDs and 16 INTs, slightly down from the previous year. Freeman and Brooks were a great tandem at WR, but the offense REALLY missed the added threat of Keith Jackson, who retired after the 1996 season. IMO he was the difference, on offense, between the 1996 and 1997 teams.
The defense missed the leadership of Sean Jones and the physical presence of Wayne Simmons. The remainder of the defense was intact, but it was aging. One positive was the addition of the brash but talented Darren Sharper.
This team also lost Desmond Howard -- Super Bowl MVP and record setting return man -- from the previous season's championship club. The loss of Howard was a microcosm of the entire team, highlighting the '97 club's lack of explosiveness compared to the '96 team.
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
Tom Brady, 2004: 288/474, 60.8%, 3,692 yards, 7.8 Y/A, 28 TD/14 INT, 92.6 QBR, 14-2 recordTestaverde, 1998: 259/421, 61.5%, 3,256, 7.7 Y/A, 27 TD/7 INT, 101.6 QBR, 12-1 recordWhere exactly is the huge advantage for Brady?
Tom Servo
Nittany Beavers
Similar threads
