Greatest Super Bowl Loser of All Time (1 Viewer)

[Chase Stuart]

It's an inherently subjective question, but I took a stab at it here.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=1161

A year ago, I wrote that the 2007 Giants were arguably the worst Super Bowl Champion of all time, with the ‘70 Colts, ‘80 Raiders, ‘87 Redskins and ‘01 Patriots hot on their heels. That subgroup is, IMO, the bottom tier of Super Bowl winners.

Some comments requested a showing of the opposite — the best Super Bowl losers ever. We all know the answer to this one: the 2007 Patriots, right? Well, maybe not. Let’s take a look. For starters, let’s take a look at the regular season record of each of the 42 Super Bowls losers.

nwe2007 16-0-0 1.000rai1967 13-1-0 0.929clt1968 13-1-0 0.929was1983 14-2-0 0.875mia1984 14-2-0 0.875atl1998 14-2-0 0.875ram2001 14-2-0 0.875min1969 12-2-0 0.857min1973 12-2-0 0.857den1977 12-2-0 0.857kan1966 11-2-1 0.821min1976 11-2-1 0.821buf1990 13-3-0 0.813buf1991 13-3-0 0.813gnb1997 13-3-0 0.813oti1999 13-3-0 0.813phi2004 13-3-0 0.813sea2005 13-3-0 0.813chi2006 13-3-0 0.813was1972 11-3-0 0.786mia1982 7-2-0 0.778mia1971 10-3-1 0.750dal1978 12-4-0 0.750phi1980 12-4-0 0.750cin1981 12-4-0 0.750cin1988 12-4-0 0.750buf1993 12-4-0 0.750nyg2000 12-4-0 0.750dal1970 10-4-0 0.714min1974 10-4-0 0.714dal1975 10-4-0 0.714den1987 10-4-1 0.700nwe1985 11-5-0 0.688den1986 11-5-0 0.688den1989 11-5-0 0.688buf1992 11-5-0 0.688sdg1994 11-5-0 0.688pit1995 11-5-0 0.688nwe1996 11-5-0 0.688rai2002 11-5-0 0.688car2003 11-5-0 0.688ram1979 9-7-0 0.563

Ten of these teams won over 85% of their games. Let’s not forget that we’re dealing with some great teams here. They just weren’t perfect.

Record isn’t everything, though — the next table shows each team’s regular season points scored, points allowed, points differential, and differential per game for each team.

nwe2007 589 274 315 19.7clt1968 402 144 258 18.4min1969 379 133 246 17.6rai1967 468 233 235 16.8ram2001 503 273 230 14.4mia1984 513 298 215 13.4was1983 541 332 209 13.1kan1966 448 276 172 12.3sea2005 452 271 181 11.3dal1978 384 208 176 11.0chi2006 427 255 172 10.8buf1990 428 263 165 10.3phi1980 384 222 162 10.1mia1971 315 174 141 10.1atl1998 442 289 153 9.6min1976 305 176 129 9.2min1973 296 168 128 9.1rai2002 450 304 146 9.1den1977 274 148 126 9.0gnb1997 422 282 140 8.8buf1991 458 318 140 8.8den1989 362 226 136 8.5was1972 336 218 118 8.4min1974 310 195 115 8.2phi2004 386 260 126 7.9mia1982 198 131 67 7.4cin1988 448 329 119 7.4cin1981 421 304 117 7.3nwe1996 418 313 105 6.6buf1992 381 283 98 6.1den1987 379 288 91 6.1dal1975 350 268 82 5.9dal1970 299 221 78 5.6buf1993 329 242 87 5.4nyg2000 328 246 82 5.1pit1995 407 327 80 5.0sdg1994 381 306 75 4.7nwe1985 362 290 72 4.5oti1999 392 324 68 4.3den1986 378 327 51 3.2car2003 325 304 21 1.3ram1979 323 309 14 0.9

Not surprisingly, the ‘07 Pats rank at the top of this list, too. But three pre-merger teams aren’t too far behind, along with three great offenses on modern teams. Like we did before, we should also look at Pythagorean record. The Pythagorean record is calculated by taking the points scored number raised to the 2.37th power, and dividing it by the sum of itself and the points allowed number raised to the 2.37th power. Explaining what the correct exponent should be is still on my to-do list, but 2.37 works for now.

Why use this? Points differential is biased towards great offense teams. A 10-0 victory may be more impressive than a 21-10 victory — we might infer that the former victor had a lower chance of ever losing that game. Once we use Pythagorean record, guess what? The 2007 Patriots don’t come out on top, for a change. The ‘69 Vikings and the ‘68 Colts had all time great defenses, and that was partially hidden when we used points differential.

min1969	  0.923clt1968	  0.919nwe2007	  0.860rai1967	  0.839den1977	  0.811dal1978	  0.810ram2001	  0.810mia1971	  0.803min1973	  0.793min1976	  0.786phi1980	  0.786mia1984	  0.784chi2006	  0.772sea2005	  0.771was1983	  0.761buf1990	  0.760kan1966	  0.759den1989	  0.753min1974	  0.750was1972	  0.736atl1998	  0.732mia1982	  0.727gnb1997	  0.722phi2004	  0.718rai2002	  0.717buf1991	  0.704cin1981	  0.684cin1988	  0.675buf1993	  0.674dal1970	  0.672buf1992	  0.669nwe1996	  0.665nyg2000	  0.664den1987	  0.657dal1975	  0.653nwe1985	  0.628sdg1994	  0.627pit1995	  0.627oti1999	  0.611den1986	  0.585car2003	  0.539ram1979	  0.526

Rest of the article available here: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=1161

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Great info, but it still looks like the '07 Patriots to me. They beat the Giants in the regular season on the road and they took the lead toward the end of the SB. They weren't embarrassed at the end of the season or anything. In fact, if Moss had come up with that deep pass on the last drive it might have been a different story.

I'd say they're the best loser, which ranks somewhere below the worst winner.

 

[Andy Herron]

Tough to dismiss last year's Patriots, but the 1971 Cowboys (Super Bowl V) would be a close second. There's something to be said for the fact that a member of the losing team won the MVP award- LB Chuck Howley. That speaks volumes for how upside down that game was.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Great info, but it still looks like the '07 Patriots to me. They beat the Giants in the regular season on the road and they took the lead toward the end of the SB. They weren't embarrassed at the end of the season or anything. In fact, if Moss had come up with that deep pass on the last drive it might have been a different story. I'd say they're the best loser, which ranks somewhere below the worst winner.

I'd suggest you take a closer look at the '68 Colts.

 

[dirty_martini]

WHAT?? You Stop you article at #6?? What a tease??

When is the full article going up? What time tomorrow?

Signed,

Anxious in Atlanta

 

[Uruk-Hai]

Tough to dismiss last year's Patriots, but the 1971 Cowboys (Super Bowl V) would be a close second. There's something to be said for the fact that a member of the losing team won the MVP award- LB Chuck Howley. That speaks volumes for how upside down that game was.

Nothing against Howley, who was a fine player, but he won that by default. Both teams were putrid that day. Neither the winner OR loser should be considered "greatest" anything. In fact, Dallas lost to the team regularly shows up on lists of worst SB winners ever. So how can they be a great loser? '07 Pats or '68 Colts would be my picks, with just about everyone else at least a level below.

 

[RudeDog]

Unfortunately the Pythagorean record number does not take into account all the garbage scores that occur at the end of blow-outs. These numbers are meaningless out of context as they are.

 

[ICON211]

Not surprisingly, the ‘07 Pats rank at the top of this list, too. But three pre-merger teams aren’t too far behind, along with three great offenses on modern teams. Like we did before, we should also look at Pythagorean record. The Pythagorean record is calculated by taking the points scored number raised to the 2.37th power, and dividing it by the sum of itself and the points allowed number raised to the 2.37th power. Explaining what the correct exponent should be is still on my to-do list, but 2.37 works for now.Why use this? Points differential is biased towards great offense teams. A 10-0 victory may be more impressive than a 21-10 victory — we might infer that the former victor had a lower chance of ever losing that game. Once we use Pythagorean record, guess what? The 2007 Patriots don’t come out on top, for a change. The ‘69 Vikings and the ‘68 Colts had all time great defenses, and that was partially hidden when we used points differential.

God help us. Whatever happened to just watching football and making determinations?

 

[RBM]

WTF

Arent we supposed to be talking football here?

 

[Limp Ditka]

Oddly enough, these numbers almost shine a favorable light upon the '06 Bears which is arguably the worst Super Bowl team of all time

 

[Tom Servo]

It's hard to argue against NE 2007 being the greatest loser. 18-0, a offense that destroyed everyone in their path and in general a team that looked unstoppable. The '68 Colts are in the discussion, but it's not like we're debating the merits of the '79 Rams here.

 

[Phurfur]

the '98 Packers should be mentioned.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

It's hard to argue against NE 2007 being the greatest loser. 18-0, a offense that destroyed everyone in their path and in general a team that looked unstoppable. The '68 Colts are in the discussion, but it's not like we're debating the merits of the '79 Rams here.

I'm kinda partial to the 2001 Rams. Better defense and special teams than the 07 Pats. And they had Faulk in addition to the uber passing attack.

 

[Dentist]

pats 2007 is #1 for SURE.

what i'm interested in are the teams that round out the top 5

 

[The Jerk]

Tough to dismiss last year's Patriots, but the 1971 Cowboys (Super Bowl V) would be a close second. There's something to be said for the fact that a member of the losing team won the MVP award- LB Chuck Howley. That speaks volumes for how upside down that game was.

Nothing against Howley, who was a fine player, but he won that by default. Both teams were putrid that day. Neither the winner OR loser should be considered "greatest" anything. In fact, Dallas lost to the team regularly shows up on lists of worst SB winners ever. So how can they be a great loser? '07 Pats or '68 Colts would be my picks, with just about everyone else at least a level below.

SB V featured 11 turnovers between the two teams. A complete comedy of errors. Widely considered to be the worst Super Bowl of the early years, and a worthy contender among all 42 thus far. The most appropriate gesture would have been to leave the MVP blank.

 

[SuperJohn96]

I'm surprised the 1990 Bills are ranked so low.

 

[heidbrink]

I immediately thought of Buffalo Bills with their 4-in-a-row SB losses

(91-94). I was living in KC at that time and had to endure a number of whippings at the hands of the Bills. I've always have had a ton of respect for the Bill team of that era... also have a ton of condolences to the fans. Respect, but that really has to sting hard.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Cool read so far.

The '07 Patriots and '01 Rams were the first two teams I thought of when seeing the title of the thread.

 

[S.K.A.]

#1 07 Patriots

#2 67 Raiders

 

[videoguy505]

In hindsight, I'd dispute his original assertion that the '07 Giants were the worst winners. Sure looked good deep into this season.

 

[Tanner9919]

I'm surprised the 1990 Bills are ranked so low.

Buffalo's run was incredible.

I thought Cincy's loss to Montana and the Niners with :34 to go was pretty tough...Cincy has to rank near the top as a result, they lost on a last 1/2 minute drive to the greatest QB of all time and one of the greatest SB teams ever..

IMO, hands down , Cincy's loss is tops.

Chase,

As for weak SB winners, forget about the 2007 Giants..how about the Steelers 21-10 win over Seattle , needing a call by the ref to help the outcome, or the Dallas Cowboys in SB XXX against Pitt, where Neil O'Donnell threw one bad pass that ended the game and gave Dallas the victory.

either of these teams could be considered the weakest winners of all time, much weaker than the 2007 Giants. You do recall that the Giants beat the second-ever team to go 16-0 in the regular season, right? A team that went 18-0 to get to the SB. against one of the greatest QB's of all time, especially one of the greatest big-game QB's of all time ( Brady).

the Giants didn't back into the title like Dallas did with that flaky O'Donnell INT, or the Steelers with that bad call by the refs, no Chase, the Giants earned...they took it from the Pats..

good write up and great thread, otherwise!

 

[JaxBill]

Chase, if you're going to all this trouble, why wasn't regular season Strength of Schedule factored in?

 

[thesurfshop19]

I've yet to see someone factor in (a) both regular season and postseason games and (b) strength of schedule in the same analysis.

I'd be very interested to see something like Drinen's "simple rating system" where all postseason games are included and weighted to be, say, 2 to 3 regular season games. Not sure what the exact number should be but that sounds about right. Not sure if that's possible or not, but I think the results of that could be intriguing.

 

[The Jerk]

I'm surprised the 1990 Bills are ranked so low.

Buffalo's run was incredible.

I thought Cincy's loss to Montana and the Niners with :34 to go was pretty tough...Cincy has to rank near the top as a result, they lost on a last 1/2 minute drive to the greatest QB of all time and one of the greatest SB teams ever..

IMO, hands down , Cincy's loss is tops.

Chase,

As for weak SB winners, forget about the 2007 Giants..how about the Steelers 21-10 win over Seattle , needing a call by the ref to help the outcome, or the Dallas Cowboys in SB XXX against Pitt, where Neil O'Donnell threw one bad pass that ended the game and gave Dallas the victory.

either of these teams could be considered the weakest winners of all time, much weaker than the 2007 Giants. You do recall that the Giants beat the second-ever team to go 16-0 in the regular season, right? A team that went 18-0 to get to the SB. against one of the greatest QB's of all time, especially one of the greatest big-game QB's of all time ( Brady).

the Giants didn't back into the title like Dallas did with that flaky O'Donnell INT, or the Steelers with that bad call by the refs, no Chase, the Giants earned...they took it from the Pats..

good write up and great thread, otherwise!

Do you understand that a Super Bowl winner is not necessarily a weak team because their game was close? Your examples concerning the 2005 Steelers and 1995 Cowboys only have merit if you assume the 2005 Seahawks and 1995 Steelers were bad teams that lost close Super Bowls. Of course, your assumption that a bad call was the only reason the Steelers won SB XL tells us a lot, too.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Chase, if you're going to all this trouble, why wasn't regular season Strength of Schedule factored in?

It was. The "SRS" is the simple rating system, which combines strength of schedule and margin of victory.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I'm surprised the 1990 Bills are ranked so low.

Buffalo's run was incredible.

I thought Cincy's loss to Montana and the Niners with :34 to go was pretty tough...Cincy has to rank near the top as a result, they lost on a last 1/2 minute drive to the greatest QB of all time and one of the greatest SB teams ever..

IMO, hands down , Cincy's loss is tops.

Chase,

As for weak SB winners, forget about the 2007 Giants..how about the Steelers 21-10 win over Seattle , needing a call by the ref to help the outcome, or the Dallas Cowboys in SB XXX against Pitt, where Neil O'Donnell threw one bad pass that ended the game and gave Dallas the victory.

either of these teams could be considered the weakest winners of all time, much weaker than the 2007 Giants. You do recall that the Giants beat the second-ever team to go 16-0 in the regular season, right? A team that went 18-0 to get to the SB. against one of the greatest QB's of all time, especially one of the greatest big-game QB's of all time ( Brady).

the Giants didn't back into the title like Dallas did with that flaky O'Donnell INT, or the Steelers with that bad call by the refs, no Chase, the Giants earned...they took it from the Pats..

good write up and great thread, otherwise!

1) I think you're confusing the '88 49ers with the '89 49ers.2) I don't think we rank teams by their performance in the SB, but rather how they were that season. For example, people don't say Ben Roethlisberger and Peyton Manning are the worst QBs to ever win a SB, they say Trent Dilfer was. I agree that '07 Giants looked more impressive in that one game than the teams you mentioned. But I think that's only one piece (albeit an important one) of the puzzle.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I've yet to see someone factor in (a) both regular season and postseason games and (b) strength of schedule in the same analysis.I'd be very interested to see something like Drinen's "simple rating system" where all postseason games are included and weighted to be, say, 2 to 3 regular season games. Not sure what the exact number should be but that sounds about right. Not sure if that's possible or not, but I think the results of that could be intriguing.

I'm using both SRS and both post-season success. That's why I highlighted Buffalo's huge MOV and pointed out several other post-season games, and also pointed out that Buffalo had an easy schedule and the '83 Redskins had a harder than average schedule. I suppose I didn't actually list each team's SOS, but it can be derived from two of the lists. A team's margin of victory minus a team's SRS rating is it's SOS. That said, here's the SOS list for the SB teams from '70 to '07 (pre-merger SOS is kind of hard to do and believe it or not:

den1977	2.3den1986	2.0rai2002	1.5dal1970	1.4nwe1985	1.3was1983	0.9den1989	0.8mia1982	0.5atl1998	0.4nwe 2007   0.4min1976	0.1dal1978	0.0pit1995	-0.4phi1980	-0.4min1973	-0.5buf1993	-0.6ram2001	-1.0gnb1997	-1.1sdg1994	-1.1cin1988	-1.3nwe1996	-1.5ram1979	-1.5buf1990	-1.7den1987	-1.7dal1975	-1.7cin1981	-1.8buf1992	-1.9was1972	-2.1min1974	-2.1sea2005	-2.2car2003	-2.2phi2004	-2.3mia1971	-2.4nyg2000	-2.7chi2006	-2.9mia1984	-2.9ten1999	-3.2buf1991	-5.2

I think you're right about some combination of post-season and SRS analysis with the weights you described. It would make for some interesting results.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Part 2 posted:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=1263

 

[dgreen]

A great stat regarding the 1983 Redskins: +43 turnover ratio in the regular season (+2.7 per game)! They had 61 takeaways and 18 giveaways. That was the fewest number of giveaways and the most takeaways that year. They were +3 in their first playoff game and +1 in the NFC Championship Game. Then they were -1 in the Super Bowl.

 

[buster c]

A great stat regarding the 1983 Redskins: +43 turnover ratio in the regular season (+2.7 per game)! They had 61 takeaways and 18 giveaways. That was the fewest number of giveaways and the most takeaways that year. They were +3 in their first playoff game and +1 in the NFC Championship Game. Then they were -1 in the Super Bowl.

and their 541 points that year stood as an NFL record until 1998 - an incredible 15 year span ('83-'98).

 

[Uruk-Hai]

A great stat regarding the 1983 Redskins: +43 turnover ratio in the regular season (+2.7 per game)! They had 61 takeaways and 18 giveaways. That was the fewest number of giveaways and the most takeaways that year. They were +3 in their first playoff game and +1 in the NFC Championship Game. Then they were -1 in the Super Bowl.

and their 541 points that year stood as an NFL record until 1998 - an incredible 15 year span ('83-'98).

That was their best team in the 80s, even if they did get whomped by the Raiders.

 

[ninerfanatic492000]

what?? the 94 Chargers didn't make the top5

 

[NE_REVIVAL]

Not surprisingly, the ‘07 Pats rank at the top of this list, too. But three pre-merger teams aren’t too far behind, along with three great offenses on modern teams. Like we did before, we should also look at Pythagorean record. The Pythagorean record is calculated by taking the points scored number raised to the 2.37th power, and dividing it by the sum of itself and the points allowed number raised to the 2.37th power. Explaining what the correct exponent should be is still on my to-do list, but 2.37 works for now.Why use this? Points differential is biased towards great offense teams. A 10-0 victory may be more impressive than a 21-10 victory — we might infer that the former victor had a lower chance of ever losing that game. Once we use Pythagorean record, guess what? The 2007 Patriots don’t come out on top, for a change. The ‘69 Vikings and the ‘68 Colts had all time great defenses, and that was partially hidden when we used points differential.

God help us. Whatever happened to just watching football and making determinations?

At FBG's?Sadly, it died many years ago and it has been replaced by the endless churning of flawed and irrelevant statistics which invariably lead to flawed and irrelevant hypothesis

 

[Gottabesweet]

I'm surprised the 1990 Bills are ranked so low.

 

[Bri]

seems like alot of effort to try and make a case against the Pats here(for some other team)

 

[Chase Stuart]

I'm surprised the 1990 Bills are ranked so low.

I was surprised, too. I remembered that team as being terrific. I was surprised that their regular season numbers were not that impressive (and not too surprised that their SOS was weak). They only ranked 12th in points differential, despite that measure being weighted towards offensive teams and teams with easy schedules. They benched their players the last game of the season (and lost by 13) so maybe it sort of evens out. I think #9 is a good spot for them. Is there any team that you bump down that's ahead of them?

 

[Chase Stuart]

seems like alot of effort to try and make a case against the Pats here(for some other team)

Everyone knows the Pats, not too many are well versed in the pre-merger teams. It would be like trying to show that Unitas > Montana (not saying I agree with that, just providing an example).

 

[NE_REVIVAL]

seems like alot of effort to try and make a case against the Pats here(for some other team)

Shockingly the effort comes from the very same guy who went the extra mile last year to create a statistical formula that sugested David Garrard, not Tom Brady was really the league MVP

 

[Adebisi]

seems like alot of effort to try and make a case against the Pats here(for some other team)

Shockingly the effort comes from the very same guy who went the extra mile last year to create a statistical formula that sugested David Garrard, not Tom Brady was really the league MVP

No way. Seriously? Any chance I could trouble you for a bump?

 

[NE_REVIVAL]

seems like alot of effort to try and make a case against the Pats here(for some other team)

Shockingly the effort comes from the very same guy who went the extra mile last year to create a statistical formula that sugested David Garrard, not Tom Brady was really the league MVP

No way. Seriously? Any chance I could trouble you for a bump?

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...357385&st=0

 

[Johnny Rock]

Surprised there isn't more love from the posters for the '69 Vikings. Memory shades toward the more recent Patriots, esp for younger FBGs, but the Vikings dominated back then.

Scored 379 points (27.1/g), 1st of 16 in the NFL.

Allowed 133 points (9.5/g), 1st.

Differential of 246 points (17.6/g), 1st.

Takeaway/Giveaway Differential +12 (0.9/g), 3rd.

Def: 30 INT (2 TDs), 17 FumRec (1 TD)

Coached by Bud Grant (12-2-0)

 

[Bri]

seems like alot of effort to try and make a case against the Pats here(for some other team)

Everyone knows the Pats, not too many are well versed in the pre-merger teams. It would be like trying to show that Unitas > Montana (not saying I agree with that, just providing an example).

Fun research (as always) to read, eitherway, Chase

 

[Day Drinker]

How do the 2008 Pittsburgh Steelers rank? Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

[Chase Stuart]

seems like alot of effort to try and make a case against the Pats here(for some other team)

Shockingly the effort comes from the very same guy who went the extra mile last year to create a statistical formula that sugested David Garrard, not Tom Brady was really the league MVP

I did not realize you wanted Brady and the Pats to be known as the biggest chokers of all time.

 

[dirty_martini]

seems like alot of effort to try and make a case against the Pats here(for some other team)

Shockingly the effort comes from the very same guy who went the extra mile last year to create a statistical formula that sugested David Garrard, not Tom Brady was really the league MVP

No way. Seriously? Any chance I could trouble you for a bump?

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...357385&st=0

My vote for NFL MVP through six weeks, It's a quarterback, but not Brady or Manning is the title of that thread... seems to me you are misrepresenting that post in more ways than one. Thin skin Pat fan, maybe?

 

[Ghost Rider]

seems like alot of effort to try and make a case against the Pats here(for some other team)

Shockingly the effort comes from the very same guy who went the extra mile last year to create a statistical formula that sugested David Garrard, not Tom Brady was really the league MVP

That was through six weeks. It's not like he said that at the end of the season. Way to misrepresent the facts.

 

[T Bell]

A great stat regarding the 1983 Redskins: +43 turnover ratio in the regular season (+2.7 per game)! They had 61 takeaways and 18 giveaways. That was the fewest number of giveaways and the most takeaways that year. They were +3 in their first playoff game and +1 in the NFC Championship Game. Then they were -1 in the Super Bowl.

and their 541 points that year stood as an NFL record until 1998 - an incredible 15 year span ('83-'98).

That was their best team in the 80s, even if they did get whomped by the Raiders.

I actually think that that was arguably better than the '91 team that won the Super Bowl. Either way though, they paid a heavy price in terms of glory for falling short in the most important game of the year.

 

[T Bell]

It's hard to argue against NE 2007 being the greatest loser. 18-0, a offense that destroyed everyone in their path and in general a team that looked unstoppable. The '68 Colts are in the discussion, but it's not like we're debating the merits of the '79 Rams here.

I'm kinda partial to the 2001 Rams. Better defense and special teams than the 07 Pats. And they had Faulk in addition to the uber passing attack.

No way the Rams had a better defense. The offense was probably a wash. You're not going to talk the Pats out of the #1 spot.

 

[Ghost Rider]

It's hard to argue against NE 2007 being the greatest loser. 18-0, a offense that destroyed everyone in their path and in general a team that looked unstoppable. The '68 Colts are in the discussion, but it's not like we're debating the merits of the '79 Rams here.

I'm kinda partial to the 2001 Rams. Better defense and special teams than the 07 Pats. And they had Faulk in addition to the uber passing attack.

No way the Rams had a better defense. The offense was probably a wash.

The Rams defense was 3rd in total yards in '01, and forced 29 turnovers. The Patriots defense was 4th in total yards in '07, and forced 32 turnovers. So the two defense are very comparable, so there is no way you can say either defense was clearly better than the other. And both teams played tough schedules.

 

[T Bell]

It's hard to argue against NE 2007 being the greatest loser. 18-0, a offense that destroyed everyone in their path and in general a team that looked unstoppable. The '68 Colts are in the discussion, but it's not like we're debating the merits of the '79 Rams here.

I'm kinda partial to the 2001 Rams. Better defense and special teams than the 07 Pats. And they had Faulk in addition to the uber passing attack.

No way the Rams had a better defense. The offense was probably a wash.

The Rams defense was 3rd in total yards in '01, and forced 29 turnovers. The Patriots defense was 4th in total yards in '07, and forced 32 turnovers. So the two defense are very comparable, so there is no way you can say either defense was clearly better than the other. And both teams played tough schedules.

I watched both of them play. The Rams defense, very much like in 1999, had inflated stats because of how well the offense positioned them in games. They had hastily rebuilt themselves after they were exposed in 2000. In 2001, Adam Archuleta was starting for them at safety. That's how miserable they were. The Pats defense certainly benefitted from an equally explosive offense, but that unit was good in its own right and benefitted from a tremendous scheme, coaching and veteran leadership. The 2007 Pats defense wasn't elite, but the Rams were imposters.