What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

jwvdcw's rankings of the past 20 Super Bowl Champs (1 Viewer)

jwvdcw

Footballguy
Was a little bored tonight, so I decided to put this together. I didn't give everything a whole lot of thought, so I'm reserving the right to make some changes, as people respond and give me more insight. Also, I'll edit in some more comments as we go along. Let me know what you think.....

1. 1985 Bears

18-1, #2 Points Scored, #1 Points Allowed, +258 Points

What can I say that hasn't been said before? A very legitimate claim to the best defense and best running back of all time- a combo thats not easy to beat. And their passing game actually wasn't too bad either: 4th in the league in yards per pass attempt. They went 15-1 and dominated in the playoffs, winning by scores of 21-0, 24-0, and 46-10. A few highlights about the best team of the past twenty years: The only team on this list to both score over 400 points and give up under 200, their defense not only didn't give up the points but they also forced an amazing 54 turnovers, they outgained their playoff opponents 1023 yards to 434, in the super bowl the Patriots gained yardage on only one of their first 16 offensive plays.

2. 1991 Redskins

17-2, #1 Points Scored, #2 Points Allowed, +261 Points

Maybe the most underrated team of all time in my opinion. They came closer than any other team to matching the Dolphins undefeated season. They lost in week 17 when they sat their starters- a game they surely would've won if they had tried. Their only other loss? A 3 point loss in a game in which their opponent caught a hail mary and recovered an onside kick. And all that while playing one of the toughest schedules of any team on this list, as their regular season opponents had a 53% winning percentage. No team was close to the Skins this year, as they won in the playoffs 24-7, 41-10, and 37-24(and that game really wasn't even as close as the score looks). A completely balanced team- great coaching, great offense, great defense, great special teams. Their most impressive stat: They sacked opposing QBs 50 times while only giving up 9 sacks to their opponents.

3. 1989 49ers

17-2, #1 Points Scored, #3 Points Allowed, +189 Points

How do you stop a team that averages 9.5 yards on every pass attempt? I guess you don't. The 1989 49ers went 14-2, losing those two games by one point and four points respectively. Joe Montana's best season in my opinion- he completed 70+% of his passes and set the NFL record with a 112.4 passer rating. Before they played the Broncos in the Super Bowl, Terry Bradshaw commented: "There is no way the 49ers can lose. It could be 55-3 by halftime." They ended up "only" leading 27-3 at half and winning 55-10. Oh yeah....and some guy named Rice chipped in with 17 touchdowns.

4. 2004 Patriots

17-2, #4 Points Scored, #2 Points Allowed, +177 Points

This team didn't blow teams out, so I can't wow you with stats. After all they were only the 7th ranked offense and 9th ranked defense in 2004. However, this is a team that I just couldn't bet against, especially in the playoffs: They gave up only 3 points to the Manning-led Colts, went into Pittsburgh and that game was over by the end of the first half, and then they defeated a very good Eagles team in the Super Bowl. Corey Dillon is the missing link that really pushed them over the edge as a great team in my opinion, and we saw just how important he was to them as they played and lost to Pittsburgh in the regular season when he was injured. I still have no way of explaining that perplexing loss to Miami late in the year, but other than that, this team was as dominant as can be.

5. 1994 49ers

16-3, #1 Points Scored, #6 Points Allowed, +209 Points

The one knock on this team is an embarrassing 40-8 loss to the Eagles- an embarrassing loss for a team considered one of the best of all time. But this team was just too good to drop any further. After that game, they went on a rampage, only losing a meaningless week 17 game and absolutely destroying everyone in the playoffs. Perhaps the best offense in the history of the league, they averaged 43.7 points in the playoffs and the Chargers never even had a chance in a 49-26 Super Bowl loss. Steve Young matched Montana in 1989 by completing over 70% of his passes, and his rushing ability made him nearly impossible to defend. Add in Deion Sanders on defense and this might have been the most fun team to watch of all time.

6. 1996 Packers

16-3, #1 Points Scored, #1 Points Allowed, +246 Points

The only team on this list to both lead the league in points scored and points allowed. Brett Favre gets a lot of the credit(and he surely deserves it), but their defense was just as dominant, leading the league in points allowed, yards allowed, and passing yards allowed(a very impressive stat for a winning team because teams usually pass more when they are behind, thus winning teams usually don't have great pass defense statistics). No team came with 14 points of them in the playoffs, which were a bit anti-climatic with the Packers facing the forgetable Panthers and Patriots in the NFC Championship and Super Bowl. Interestingly enough, they still lost to the Cowboys in the regular season- a team that had been their big stumbling block the previous few years. Would've been a bit more interesting if they had played in the playoffs in my opinion.

7. 1998 Broncos

17-2, #1 Points Scored, #7 Points Allowed, +192 Points

They won their first 13 games and flirted with perfection before finishing 14-2, with one of the losses being a meaningless week 16 game. Terrell Davis made life easy for John Elway, rushing for 2000 yards. We missed out on a fabulous Super Bowl when the 15-1 Vikings were upset by the Falcons in the NFC Championship game when their Gary Anderson, who hadn't missed a FG all year long, missed his first one on a game winning attempt. Instead we got a Denver blowout, capping their dominant playoff run. Their defense was rather pedestrian in the regular season(12th ranked yardage wise and they gave up 309 points), but they really turned it on in the postseason, where they only gave up 3 touchdowns: A one-yard drive by the Jets following a blocked punt, a kickoff return by Tim Dwight and a TD pass by Chris Chandler with less than two minutes remaining in the Super Bowl blowout.

8. 1986 Giants

17-2, #8 Points Scored, #2 Points Allowed, +137 Points

They lost their first game of the year by 3 points to the Cowboys and had a 5 point loss to a good Seahawks team that finished 10-6. Other than that, they were close to flawless: A 14-2 record and wins of 49-3, 17-0, and 39-20 in the playoffs. Lawerence Taylor had 20.5 en route to winning MVP- the first defensive player to win the award since 1971.

9. 2000 Ravens

16-4, #14 Points Scored, #1 Points Allowed, +168 Points

Possibly the hardest team to rank on my list. I am a Ravens fan, but I honestly can say that I think I'm being objective here. Clearly the big knock on this team is their offense, which went 5 games in a row without scoring a touchdown.However, when your defense only allows one touchdown in 4 playoffs games(only one of which was at home) and your defense/special teams scores 4 touchdowns during that same stretch, you don't need much from your offense. I remember watching their AFC Championship game against Oakland- The Ravens scored on a long TD reception early in the game. I turned and said to my friend, "This game is over." And I meant it. Their defense was simply that good that I was completely confident that one score was enough. They set the all time record by only allowed 165 points, they also blew away the previous record by only allowing 2.69 yards per rush, they allowed under 4000 yards total. And by the end of the season their offense with Jonathon Ogden, Shannon Sharpe, and Jamal Lewis really wasn't as bad as they are made out to be, as they proved by scoring 34 points in the Super Bowl against a team that had just shut out the high-powered Vikings. Some will argue that I'm ranking them too highly, but the following stat really amazes me: After Dilfer took over, the Ravens outscored their opponents 294-96! That is more than a 3-1 margin and no team on this list even comes close to accomplishing that.

10. 1992 Cowboys

16-3, #2 Points Scored, #5 Points Allowed, +156 Points

The leading rusher, the highest rated passer, the 2nd most yards by a WR, the #1 ranked defense, and arguably the greatest o-line of all time. Had to beat a very tough 14-2 49ers team on the road in the NFC Championship game before dismantling the Buffalo Bills in the Super Bowl. A very complete team that could beat teams in a myriad of ways. There was so much star power on this team that its easy to forget about a guy like Jay Novacek, who was widely considered one of the best tight ends of his time. "America's Team", and a team that I absolutely despised being a Redskins fan.

11. 1993 Cowboys

15-4, #2 Points Scores, #2 Points Allowed, +147 Points

Emmitt Smith sat out the first two games due to a contract dispute, and the Cowboys started off 0-2. However, after he came back, nothing had changed from last year, including wins over SF and Buffalo in the NFC Championship and Super Bowl once again. They had a "bend but don't break" defense that wasn't too stingy as far as yardage and didn't create too many turnovers but only ended up giving up 229 points on the year. The ranking of these 2 Cowboys teams may seem a bit low, but I believe that their star power has caused many to overrate them. Statistically speaking, Irvin and Aikman aren't nearly as dominant as their reputations, and outside of rushing stats, this team isn't that impressive compared to the other teams on this list.

12. 2003 Pats

17-2, #12 Points Scored, #1 Points Allowed, +110 Points

As I said about the 2004 version, if you look at the stats, you're not going to be really impressed with this team. However, they won games, and there is nobody not named Montana that I strikes more fear in opposing defenses late in games than Tom Brady. They got embarred by an inspired Buffalo Bills team(Ty Law situation) in week one and lost by 3 points to the Redskins in week 4. But after that they won 15 in a row, including 3 playoff games that were as close as possible. Its hard to rank this team because they weren't dominant at all, but 15 wins in a row is 15 wins in a row. A team without much star power at all, but they would come through in the clutch time and time again. Extremely well coached.

13. 1997 Broncos

15-4, #1 Points Scored, #7 Points Allowed, + 185 Points

12-4 was only good enough for the #4 seed, as the Chiefs went 13-3. But it set up one of the most entertaining postseason runs ever. After blowing out Jacksonville, Denver had to play on the road against Kansas City and Pittsburgh where they had lost against both teams in the regular season. It didn't matter as they won 14-10 and 24-21 respectively. That set up a great Super Bowl against the defending champion Green Bay Packers, in which Elway won his first Super Bowl, 31-24. The Broncos were a very balanced team and finished #1 in offense and #4 in defense. Terrell Davis became a star this year behind that great o-line, rushing for 1750 yards.

14. 1995 Cowboys

15-4, #3 Points Scored, #3 Points Allowed, +144 Points

Deion Sanders switched teams and brought the Super Bowl trophy back to Dallas. Emmitt Smith rushed for a staggering 25 touchdowns in one of the greatest seasons ever for a running back. The defense was a bit worse than their 1992 and 1993 teams, and they lost their #2 WR, Alvin Harper, in free agency. For those reasons, I rank this team lower than the other 2 Dallas teams on this list. The Steelers were competitive in the Super Bowl, but it was pretty clear throughout that they were simply outmatched, as the Cowboys ended up winning by ten.

15.2002 Bucs

15-4, #18 Points Scored, #1 Points Allowed, +150 Points

A mini-version of the 2000 Ravens in my opinion. Their defense was tough, giving up only 196 points, forcing 31 interceptions, and leading the league in yards allowed. Brad Johnson and Keyshawn Johnson were servicable for the offense, although their leading rusher (Michael Pittman) only had just over 700 yards rushing, which I found very odd for a Super Bowl champ. In another odd happening, the New Orleans Saints, who didn't even make the playoffs, handed the Bucs 2 of their 4 regular season losses. The Bucs were very impressive in the playoffs though, dominating on the road against Philly in the NFC Championship Game and adding several late scores in the Super Bowl to blow out Oakland, 48-21.

16. 1990 Giants

16-3, #15 Points Scored, #1 Points Allowed, +124 Points

Fabulous defense, so-so offense, and one Scott Norwood miss equaled a Super Bowl win. Lawerence Taylor led a stingy defense that only let up 211 points on the year. They avenged a regular season loss by eeking out a 15-13 win at San Francisco in the NFC Championship before their classic Super Bowl victory. Surely one of the most entertaining Super Bowl runs.

17. 2001 Pats

14-5, #6 Points Scored, #6 Points Allowed, +99 Points

I'm a huge Brady fan and I was definitely rooting for this team to upset the Rams in the Super Bowl, but lets be honest: They caught the break of all breaks with the "tuck rule" call against Oakland. If two people sit down to play a game, neither of them know about a particular rule of the game, the game is played out and as they are playing someone comes by and tells them about that rule, and that rule decides the game, would you really consider whomever won to be the true victor? Because theres no way that any player on the field had even heard about the tuck rule. I've said in my previous two rankings of Pats teams that stats aren't really important with the Pats, so I won't harp too much on their 19th ranked offense or 24th ranked defense. But I will mention that they essentially had a rookie QB, might have had the least amount of talent ever on a Super Bowl winning team, and got the benefit of two calls(in addition to the tuck rule, after the Super Bowl the NFL changed the rule to say that no more than 5 seconds could run off the clock on a field goal, a rule which would've meant that the Rams would've had a few more seconds to try to win the Super Bowl if it had been implemented). They surely have evolved into one of the greatest dynasties in football history, but in their weakest year, I have to put them near the bottom of this list.

18. 1999 Rams

16-3, #1 Points Scored, #4 Points Allowed, +284 Points

One of the most overrated teams in NFL history I think. The "Greatest Show on Turf" played one team with a winning record in the regular season, and they lost. One team with a winning record! In the playoffs, they really should have lost to the Bucs in the NFC Championship Game. There was a key play late in the game where a Bucs receiver caught a ball that hit the ground, but the receiver had complete control over the ball even when it hit the ground. They ruled it incomplete. In the offseason, the NFL revised the rulebook to clarify the fact that it should have been a catch. Then in the Super Bowl, they won by one yard over a team that was only there because of a "miracle" kick return. Yes, the Rams stats were impressive, but I believe that 1999 was a weak year all around. The four favored teams coming into the year were Denver, Minnesota, NY Jets, and Atlanta. Elway retired and Terrell Davis got injured, Cunningham missed half the season, Testaverde missed the entire year, and Jamal Anderson missed the entire year. Only the Vikings were able to even be competitive. As a result, there was a lot of mediocrity that year, which enabled the Rams to take advantage and win the Super Bowl. Their offense, while successful, was very one dimensional in the playoffs, as they only rushed for 111 yards during 3 playoff games. I feel like many of the great defenses on this list would've taken advantage of that.

19. 1987 Redskins

14-4, #5 Points Scored, #6 Points Allowed, +94 Points

They were only 11-4. There were two dominant teams this year: The 13-2 SF 49ers and the 12-3 New Orleans Saints(and consider that they had to play each other twice, so they were really a combined 23-3 in other games). And the Redskins somehow avoided playing both of them in the playoffs, as the 8-7 Minnesota Vikings upset both of them before the Skins beat them. The Redskins, in fact, barely escaped their first playoff game, narrowly beating Chicago by 4. Moreover, the 22nd ranked defense didn't scare anyone. However, despite all of that they were actually pretty close to an undefeated season, as their 4 losses came by 1, 4, 4, and 2 points. And then they beat Denver 42-10 in the Super Bowl. Despite the fact that I'm a huge Skins fan, I have to rank them low due to the aforementioned factors.

20. 1988 49ers

13-6, #7 Points Scored, #8 Points Allowed, +75 Points

An average 10-6 record, nearly 300 points allowed, and a very close Super Bowl victory hurt the 49ers ranking here. However, its tough to bet against Montana and Rice, and they were very impressive in winning the NFC Championship game in Chicago, 28-3. With their defense, its hard to say. On one hand, they were 3rd in yards allowed. But on the other hand, they gave up nearly 300 points. They did lose quite a few heartbreakers, which is different for a Montana-led thing, but I guess they were the victors when it mattered most. Amazing drive against the Bengals to win the Super Bowl.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Great great read. Hopefully this generates a lot of good discussion/debates/pissing matches. It's late but I'll chime in later with thoughts on the Bucs, Ravens and Rams placements (I think they should be higher). Very good posting jvcxdzqw

 

jwvdcw

Footballguy
Lol...just posted it and I"m already switching things around. Moved the Rams up from 20 to 18 and the 2001 Pats up from 19 to 17, and moved the 88 49ers and 87 Skins down.I was born in 1982, and I really don't feel all that comfortable ranking 1986, 1987, or 1988 as I don't know a ton about them, so I definitely want to hear some thoughts on those rankings.

 
Um, you list the 96' Packers at #6. Then, you list the 97' Broncos at #11...and the dominant 98' Broncos at #13. If I recall, the Packers were viewed as an even better team in 97', when the Broncos beat them. In fact, the oddsmakers had them as huge favorites against a good Bronco team (somewhere around 11 point favorites, I believe)...Anyway, if the Packers were as good as you say, how are the Broncos not higher? The 97' Broncos came into their own late. Avenging a home playoff loss to Jacksonville the year before, they waxed em', and then went on the road to Pitt, AND Arrowhead, and came away with wins. Those are brutal places to win, especially in the playoffs. That is a harder road than the typical home field advantage that most of your list had (again, they came into their own late). Anyway, that is indeed impressive. And without the week off that has proven to be so vital, they still waltzed right on through to the Superbowl, where nobody gave them much of a chance against the lofty Packers, who people considered unbeatable.Well, the next year the Broncos were untouchable, and flirted with a perfect season, if not for an arguably unfortunate loss in New York. They steamrolled everybody that whole year, including the Superbowl. I don't remember many teams being that dominant. Dallas was...9ers, too...but, if you're putting the 96' Pack up so high, I'd say the Broncos should be ahead of them -- in EITHER year, for that matter. And the best evidence of such is the fact they beat the Packers, in their prime, when it mattered most.

 

azgroover

Footballguy
I'm tired of hearing about the 85 Bears. I can't wait till next year when they can't be considered one of the top teams of the past 20 years.

 

culdeus

Have good
What are you basing this on? ?% Regular season?% Playoffs?% Actual Super Bowl performance?% Some difficulty factor/intangible

 

BoulderBob

Footballguy
I'm tired of hearing about the 85 Bears. I can't wait till next year when they can't be considered one of the top teams of the past 20 years.
Well, the 2006 Super Bowl Champion Bears with the second best defense of all time, will surely get to you as well... ;)

 

JohnnyU

Footballguy
I would take the 1978 Steelers over all of those teams. Look at the HOFers on offense and defense from that team, whose defense I rank ahead of the 1985 bears, and offense that was light years ahead of the 1985 bears.Edited to say, sorry, my bad, as 1978 is more than 20 years ago. :bag:

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Willy

Footballguy
I would take the 1978 Steelers over all of those teams. You missed the boat on that one. Look at the HOFers on offense and defense from that team, whose defense I rank ahead of the 1985 bears, and offense that was light years ahead of the 1985 bears.
He said last 20 Super Bowls. 1978 was a bit before that.
 

JohnnyU

Footballguy
I would take the 1978 Steelers over all of those teams.  You missed the boat on that one.  Look at the HOFers on offense and defense from that team, whose defense I rank ahead of the 1985 bears, and offense that was light years ahead of the 1985 bears.
He said last 20 Super Bowls. 1978 was a bit before that.
Oops, my bad. Maybe I should work on my reading skills, or my math?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

BassNBrew

IBL Representative
I would take the 1978 Steelers over all of those teams. You missed the boat on that one. Look at the HOFers on offense and defense from that team, whose defense I rank ahead of the 1985 bears, and offense that was light years ahead of the 1985 bears.
:potkettle:
 

JohnnyU

Footballguy
I would take the 1978 Steelers over all of those teams.  You missed the boat on that one.  Look at the HOFers on offense and defense from that team, whose defense I rank ahead of the 1985 bears, and offense that was light years ahead of the 1985 bears.
:potkettle:
:bag: Already noted.
 

PsychoMan

Footballguy
I'm tired of hearing about the 85 Bears. I can't wait till next year when they can't be considered one of the top teams of the past 20 years.
Why are you tired of hearing about the 85 Bears? They were an awesome football team. Arguably one of the most exciting defenses to watch in NFL history teamed up with the likes of Walter Payton & the rest ...and c'mon -- gotta love the fridge !

 

Ghost Rider

Footballguy
10. 2000 Ravens

Possibly the hardest team to rank on my list. I am a Ravens fan, but I honestly can say that I think I'm being objective here. Clearly the big knock on this team is their offense, which went 5 games in a row without scoring a touchdown.However, when your defense only allows one touchdown in 4 playoffs games(only one of which was at home) and your defense/special teams scores 3 touchdowns during that same stretch, you don't need much from your offense. I remember watching their AFC Championship game against Oakland- The Ravens scored on a long TD reception early in the game. I turned and said to my friend, "This game is over." And I meant it. Their defense was simply that good that I was completely confident that one score was enough. They set the all time record by only allowed 165 points, they also blew away the previous record by only allowing 2.69 yards per rush, they allowed under 4000 yards total. And by the end of the season their offense with Jonathon Ogden, Shannon Sharpe, and Jamal Lewis really wasn't as bad as they are made out to be, as they proved by scoring 34 points in the Super Bowl against a team that had just shut out the high-powered Vikings.
The Ravens scored 34 points in the Super Bowl, but 14 of them were from defense and special teams (each had a return for a touchdown). So, I wouldn't give the offense too much credit for that game.
11. 1998 Broncos

They won their first 13 games and flirted with perfection. Terrell Davis made life easy for John Elway, rushing for 2000 yards. We missed out on a fabulous Super Bowl when the 15-1 Vikings were upset by the Falcons in the NFC Championship game when their Gary Anderson, who hadn't missed a FG all year long, missed his first one on a game winning attempt. Instead we got a Denver blowout, capping their dominant playoff run. The only thing that stops this team from being higher on my list is a 12th ranked defense than gave up 300+ points, which is a lot for a Super Bowl winning team.
This team was far better than you are giving them credit for. They dominated opponents week after week and only gave up 300 points because teams scored against them in garbage time of games the Broncos had in hand by the 3rd quarter.

The Broncos outscored their playoff opponents by a margin of 95 - 32.

The Broncos only allowed three touchdowns in the playoffs, a one-yard drive by the Jets following a blocked punt, a kickoff return by Tim Dwight in the touchdown and a TD pass by Chris Chandler with less than two minutes remaining in the Super Bowl blowout.

Do not take anything away from their achievement because they played Atlanta in the SB instead of Minnesota. The Falcons were 14-2 in '98 and were a dominant regular season team. It is not like they were some chump team that got lucky and made the Super Bowl.

16.2002 Bucs

A mini-version of the 2000 Ravens in my opinion. Their defense was tough, giving up only 196 points, forcing 31 interceptions, and leading the league in yards allowed. Brad Johnson and Keyshawn Johnson were servicable for the offense, although their leading rusher (Michael Pittman) only had just over 700 yards rushing, which I found very odd for a Super Bowl champ. In another odd happening, the New Orleans Saints, who didn't even make the playoffs, handed the Bucs 2 of their 4 regular season losses. The Bucs were very impressive in the playoffs though, dominating on the road against Philly in the NFC Championship Game and adding several late scores in the Super Bowl to blow out Oakland, 48-21.
The '02 Bucs were as good or better than the '00 Ravens. Their defense was just as dominant in the playoffs and their offense was far better. The Bucs dominated in all of their playoff wins.
18. 1999 Rams

One of the most overrated teams in NFL history I think. The "Greatest Show on Turf" played one team with a winning record in the regular season, and they lost. One team with a winning record! In the playoffs, they really should have lost to the Bucs in the NFC Championship Game. There was a key play late in the game where a Bucs receiver caught a ball that hit the ground, but the receiver had complete control over the ball even when it hit the ground. They ruled it incomplete. In the offseason, the NFL revised the rulebook to clarify the fact that it should have been a catch. Then in the Super Bowl, they won by one yard over a team that was only there because of a "miracle" kick return. Yes, the Rams stats were impressive, but I believe that 1999 was a weak year all around. The four favored teams coming into the year were Denver, Minnesota, NY Jets, and Atlanta. Elway retired and Terrell Davis got injured, Cunningham missed half the season, Testaverde missed the entire year, and Jamal Anderson missed the entire year. Only the Vikings were able to even be competitive. As a result, there was a lot of mediocrity that year, which enabled the Rams to take advantage and win the Super Bowl. Their offense, while successful, was very one dimensional in the playoffs, as they only rushed for 111 yards during 3 playoff games. I feel like many of the great defenses on this list would've taken advantage of that.
Why should they have lost to the Bucs? Even if Emanuel's catch had been allowed, there is not guarantee they would have scored. They still would have only been around the 20-yard line. To assume they would have automatically scored and won the game if that play had counted is just wrong. Having said that, I do think the Rams are one of the weaker SB winners on this list, but I simply object to your assertion that TB should have won that game.
 

jwvdcw

Footballguy
Good to see no homerism on your part ranking Washington #3 overall and Dallas #7 overall

:sarcasm:
The 1992 Cowboys scored 409 pointsThe 1991 Redskins scored 485 points

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys let up 243 points

The 1991 Redskins let up 224 points

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys were 13-3 with all 3 losses coming in games they fully tried to win

The 1991 Redskins were 14-2 including a meaningless week 17 loss

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys worst game was a 31-7 loss in which they were thoroughly dominated

The 1991 Redskins biggest loss was a 3pt loss in which their opponent caught a hail mary and recovered an onside kick

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys gained 5718 total yards on offense

The 1991 Redskins gained 5820 total yards on offense

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys allowed 4278 total yards on defense

The 1991 Redskins allowed 4638 total yards on defense

Advantage: Cowboys

The 1992 Cowboys intercepted 17 passes

The 1991 Redskins intercepted 27 passes

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys threw 15 interceptions

The 1991 Redskins threw 11 interceptions

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys forced and recovered 21 fumbles

The 1991 Redskins forced and recovered 24 fumbles

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys fumbled and lost the ball 19 times

The 1991 Redskins fumbled and lost the ball 16 times

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys had 6 pro bowlers

The 1991 Redskins had 7 pro bowlers

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys had 44 sacks

The 1991 Redskins had 50 sacks

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys gave up 23 sacks

The 1991 Redskins gave up 9 sacks

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys averaged 18.891 yards per kickoff return

The 1991 Redskins averaged 18.897 yards per kickoff return

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys allowed 20.3 yards per kickoff return

The 1991 Redskins allowed 17.5 yards per kickoff return

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys averaged 12.5 yards per punt return

The 1991 Redskins averaged 13.3 yards per punt return

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys allowed 11.7 yards per punt return

The 1991 Redskins allowed 6.1 yards per punt return

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys averaged 43.0 yards per punt

The 1991 Redskins averaged 39.8 yards per punt

Advantage: Cowboys

The 1992 Cowboys made 24/35 field goals(68%)

The 1991 Redskins made 31/43 field goals(72%)

Advantage: Redskins

ESPN.com writer, Eddie Epstein came up with a forumla called "adjusted power index" which basically ranks all teams taking all factors into consideration. He explains his formula here.

The 1992 Cowboys did not make the list of top 10 all time

The 1991 Redskins had the 5th highest ranking of all time

Advantage: Redskins

There are 3 teams on my list that I'm a homer for(2 Skins teams and one Ravens team). I have them ranked #3, #10, and #19- thats pretty much as average as it gets. For you to just pick out the one homer team that I have ranked high and accuse me of homerism is just foolish(or fishing). I've given you all the numbers you need right here- make an actual argument for why you feel like the Cowboys were better.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Quez

Footballguy
I dont think you can rank the 2000 Ravens ahead of the 2002 Bucs
:goodposting: 2002 Bucs > 2000 Ravens :thumbup: :thumbup:

Neither had a spectacular offense, but I wouldn't even consider the Ravens good.

The Buc's had just as many defensive TD's, and set all kinds of records that season, in the playoffs, and in the SB. There was a stretch there were Brooks had like 5 or 6 TD's.

 

jwvdcw

Footballguy
What are you basing this on?

?% Regular season

?% Playoffs

?% Actual Super Bowl performance

?% Some difficulty factor/intangible
I guess you could saying I'm basing it on how I think they would finish if they all played a regular season against one another. Obviously it would be impossible to fully analyze because a team like the 1989 49ers would no longer have the advantage of the WCO being so far ahead of its time. So in that respect I still am considering each team versus other teams from their own year.Maybe think about my rankings this way: If we replayed each season 1000 times, I'm listing the teams in the order of the number of times out of 1000 that I think they would've won the Super Bowl. So the 1985 Bears, for example, would've won it many times out of the one thousand 1985 season, so they're #1....but then the problem with that line of thought is that it penalizes teams who had better competition against them in their year.

Overall, I guess its just a combonation of all of those things....nothing too scientific about it- just wanted to cause some debate.

 

BigTex

Don't mess with Texas
Good to see no homerism on your part ranking Washington #3 overall and Dallas #7 overall

:sarcasm:
The 1992 Cowboys scored 409 pointsThe 1991 Redskins scored 485 points

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys let up 243 points

The 1991 Redskins let up 224 points

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys were 13-3 with all 3 losses coming in games they fully tried to win

The 1991 Redskins were 14-2 including a meaningless week 17 loss

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys worst game was a 31-7 loss in which they were thoroughly dominated

The 1991 Redskins biggest loss was a 3pt loss in which their opponent caught a hail mary and recovered an onside kick

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys gained 5718 total yards on offense

The 1991 Redskins gained 5820 total yards on offense

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys allowed 4278 total yards on defense

The 1991 Redskins allowed 4638 total yards on defense

Advantage: Cowboys

The 1992 Cowboys intercepted 17 passes

The 1991 Redskins intercepted 27 passes

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys threw 15 interceptions

The 1991 Redskins threw 11 interceptions

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys forced and recovered 21 fumbles

The 1991 Redskins forced and recovered 24 fumbles

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys fumbled and lost the ball 19 times

The 1991 Redskins fumbled and lost the ball 16 times

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys had 6 pro bowlers

The 1991 Redskins had 7 pro bowlers

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys had 44 sacks

The 1991 Redskins had 50 sacks

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys gave up 23 sacks

The 1991 Redskins gave up 9 sacks

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys averaged 18.891 yards per kickoff return

The 1991 Redskins averaged 18.897 yards per kickoff return

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys allowed 20.3 yards per kickoff return

The 1991 Redskins allowed 17.5 yards per kickoff return

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys averaged 12.5 yards per punt return

The 1991 Redskins averaged 13.3 yards per punt return

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys allowed 11.7 yards per punt return

The 1991 Redskins allowed 6.1 yards per punt return

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys averaged 43.0 yards per punt

The 1991 Redskins averaged 39.8 yards per punt

Advantage: Cowboys

The 1992 Cowboys made 24/35 field goals(68%)

The 1991 Redskins made 31/43 field goals(72%)

Advantage: Redskins

ESPN.com writer, Eddie Epstein came up with a forumla called "adjusted power index" which basically ranks all teams taking all factors into consideration. He explains his formula here.

The 1992 Cowboys did not make the list of top 10 all time

The 1991 Redskins had the 5th highest ranking of all time

Advantage: Redskins

There are 3 teams on my list that I'm a homer for(2 Skins teams and one Ravens team). I have them ranked #3, #10, and #19- thats pretty much as average as it gets. For you to just pick out the one homer team that I have ranked high and accuse me of homerism is just foolish(or fishing). I've given you all the numbers you need right here- make an actual argument for why you feel like the Cowboys were better.
Great job on the ranking :thumbup: ,The Cowboys vs Redskins anaylsis is great as well, my question is, with their numbers being so close in comparison; could one argue if the Skinz are ranked #3 should not the Cowboys be ranked #4? I really don't see in one particular stat where one dominated over the other.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

jwvdcw

Footballguy
I dont think you can rank the 2000 Ravens ahead of the 2002 Bucs
:goodposting: 2002 Bucs > 2000 Ravens :thumbup: :thumbup:

Neither had a spectacular offense, but I wouldn't even consider the Ravens good.

The Buc's had just as many defensive TD's, and set all kinds of records that season, in the playoffs, and in the SB. There was a stretch there were Brooks had like 5 or 6 TD's.
The Ravens offense ranked 16th in yardage and 14th in points scoredThe Bucs offense ranked 24th in yardage and 18th in points scored

I know that I'm definitely biased, but I don't even want to get into defensive numbers because I watched both teams and there is absolutely no way you'll convince me that the 2002 Bucs defense was as good as the 2000 Ravens(sorry for being so honest, but I just don't want you to waste your time...this is one of the few things where my mind is simply made up).

 

jwvdcw

Footballguy
Good to see no homerism on your part ranking Washington #3 overall and Dallas #7 overall

:sarcasm:
The 1992 Cowboys scored 409 pointsThe 1991 Redskins scored 485 points

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys let up 243 points

The 1991 Redskins let up 224 points

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys were 13-3 with all 3 losses coming in games they fully tried to win

The 1991 Redskins were 14-2 including a meaningless week 17 loss

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys worst game was a 31-7 loss in which they were thoroughly dominated

The 1991 Redskins biggest loss was a 3pt loss in which their opponent caught a hail mary and recovered an onside kick

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys gained 5718 total yards on offense

The 1991 Redskins gained 5820 total yards on offense

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys allowed 4278 total yards on defense

The 1991 Redskins allowed 4638 total yards on defense

Advantage: Cowboys

The 1992 Cowboys intercepted 17 passes

The 1991 Redskins intercepted 27 passes

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys threw 15 interceptions

The 1991 Redskins threw 11 interceptions

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys forced and recovered 21 fumbles

The 1991 Redskins forced and recovered 24 fumbles

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys fumbled and lost the ball 19 times

The 1991 Redskins fumbled and lost the ball 16 times

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys had 6 pro bowlers

The 1991 Redskins had 7 pro bowlers

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys had 44 sacks

The 1991 Redskins had 50 sacks

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys gave up 23 sacks

The 1991 Redskins gave up 9 sacks

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys averaged 18.891 yards per kickoff return

The 1991 Redskins averaged 18.897 yards per kickoff return

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys allowed 20.3 yards per kickoff return

The 1991 Redskins allowed 17.5 yards per kickoff return

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys averaged 12.5 yards per punt return

The 1991 Redskins averaged 13.3 yards per punt return

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys allowed 11.7 yards per punt return

The 1991 Redskins allowed 6.1 yards per punt return

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys averaged 43.0 yards per punt

The 1991 Redskins averaged 39.8 yards per punt

Advantage: Cowboys

The 1992 Cowboys made 24/35 field goals(68%)

The 1991 Redskins made 31/43 field goals(72%)

Advantage: Redskins

ESPN.com writer, Eddie Epstein came up with a forumla called "adjusted power index" which basically ranks all teams taking all factors into consideration. He explains his formula here.

The 1992 Cowboys did not make the list of top 10 all time

The 1991 Redskins had the 5th highest ranking of all time

Advantage: Redskins

There are 3 teams on my list that I'm a homer for(2 Skins teams and one Ravens team). I have them ranked #3, #10, and #19- thats pretty much as average as it gets. For you to just pick out the one homer team that I have ranked high and accuse me of homerism is just foolish(or fishing). I've given you all the numbers you need right here- make an actual argument for why you feel like the Cowboys were better.
Great job on the ranking :thumbup: ,The Cowboys vs Redskins anaylsis is great as well, my question is, with their numbers being so close in comparison; could one argue if the Skinz are ranked #3 should not the Cowboys be ranked #4? I really don't see in one particular stat where one dominated over the other.
I think the main thing that I looked at when doing these rankings where record, how close they were in their losses, and when their losses were(if they lost a few games early but then turned it on and just dominated, I don't penalize them as much for those early season losses). In these categories, I think the teams ranked above the Cowboys definitely do rise above them....but I am definitely willing to listen to counter arguments- I only got defensive when someone called me a homer and didn't back it up at all. I'll try my best to address each and every critique, and I can guarantee you that quite a few of you will probably cause me to change my rankings a bit.
 

Ghost Rider

Footballguy
Maybe think about my rankings this way: If we replayed each season 1000 times, I'm listing the teams in the order of the number of times out of 1000 that I think they would've won the Super Bowl.
Then I would put the Ravens down a lot lower. As awesome as their defense was, they benefited greatly by facing Denver with their backup QB in the first round and Gannon got hurt (by a Raven cheap shot) in the AFC title game. Not to mention that they were statistically dominated by the Titans in the 2nd round, but won because of a fluke fumble return, a return of a FG miss (one of three by Del Greco). I would say that more often than not, the Ravens do not win all three of those games and then win the Super Bowl, too. I think being a wild card team should penalize them a bit, as well. How can a wild card Super Bowl winner be higher than dominant division winning Super Bowl champions like the '98 Broncos or '03 Patriots?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jwvdcw

Footballguy
Um, you list the 96' Packers at #6. Then, you list the 97' Broncos at #11...and the dominant 98' Broncos at #13. If I recall, the Packers were viewed as an even better team in 97', when the Broncos beat them. In fact, the oddsmakers had them as huge favorites against a good Bronco team (somewhere around 11 point favorites, I believe)...

Anyway, if the Packers were as good as you say, how are the Broncos not higher? The 97' Broncos came into their own late. Avenging a home playoff loss to Jacksonville the year before, they waxed em', and then went on the road to Pitt, AND Arrowhead, and came away with wins. Those are brutal places to win, especially in the playoffs. That is a harder road than the typical home field advantage that most of your list had (again, they came into their own late). Anyway, that is indeed impressive. And without the week off that has proven to be so vital, they still waltzed right on through to the Superbowl, where nobody gave them much of a chance against the lofty Packers, who people considered unbeatable.

Well, the next year the Broncos were untouchable, and flirted with a perfect season, if not for an arguably unfortunate loss in New York. They steamrolled everybody that whole year, including the Superbowl. I don't remember many teams being that dominant. Dallas was...9ers, too...but, if you're putting the 96' Pack up so high, I'd say the Broncos should be ahead of them -- in EITHER year, for that matter. And the best evidence of such is the fact they beat the Packers, in their prime, when it mattered most.
Thanks for your comments.-You confused my ranked of the 97 and 98 teams(you have it backwards)

-There is no way I think that the 97 Packers were a better team than the 1996 Packers. Their offenses were nearly similar(both #5 in total yardage, with 1996 being #1 in points and 1997 they were #2). However, the 1996 Packers defense was way better(1996: 1st in points allowed and 1st in yardage allowed, 1997:5th in points allowed and 9th in yardage allowed)

-As I said, I think I give a little more credit to late season success, so a team like the 2004 Pats that lost 2 games early and then became unbeatable gets a small advantage over a team like the 1998 Broncos that lost 2 games late when you are supposed to be at your best.

-I know that you're a Broncos homer, and to be totally honest, it'd be easier to give full weight to your critique if I didn't know this.

-With all that said, I could see myself ranking the 1998 team higher, as they were pretty dominant. An average ranked defense did scare me away a bit. Let me think it over, and keep throwing some more arguments at me, and I might just move them up.

 

Ghost Rider

Footballguy
-As I said, I think I give a little more credit to late season success, so a team like the 2004 Pats that lost 2 games early and then became unbeatable gets a small advantage over a team like the 1998 Broncos that lost 2 games late when you are supposed to be at your best.
If you are giving more credit to late season success, then shouldn't you factor in dominant postseason performances. I already listed how dominant the '98 Broncos were in the postseason (outscoring their opponents by a 95 - 32 margin). And one of their losses at the end of the season was a meaningless one to the Dolphins after they had already clinched home field and lost to the Giants the previous week. That is no worse than multiple other SB winners who have lost a week 16 or 17 game once they had home field wrapped up.

 

jwvdcw

Footballguy
Maybe think about my rankings this way: If we replayed each season 1000 times, I'm listing the teams in the order of the number of times out of 1000 that I think they would've won the Super Bowl. 
Then I would put the Ravens down a lot lower. As awesome as their defense was, they benefited greatly by facing Denver with their backup QB in the first round and Gannon got hurt (by a Raven cheap shot) in the AFC title game. Not to mention that they were statistically dominated by the Titans in the 2nd round, but won because of a fluke fumble return, a return of a FG miss (one of three by Del Greco). I would say that more often than not, the Ravens do not win all three of those games and then win the Super Bowl, too. I think being a wild card team should penalize them a bit, as well. How can a wild card Super Bowl winner be higher than dominant division winning Super Bowl champions like the '98 Broncos or '03 Patriots?
The Ravens won every playoff game by at least 2 scores. Was it really that close? You mention the 2003 Patriots as a team that maybe should be higher: Their biggest blowout of the postseason(10pt win) was closer than the Ravens closest win(13pt win).The Titans scored one early touchdown. After that they didn't sniff the goalline, and as you mentioned the Ravens D/ST actually outscored the Titan's offense in that game. I simply don't think that the Raven's D/ST scores were "flukes" as you called them. They scored 4 TDs in 4 playoff games- when you do it that much, its not a fluke imho.

As for Oakland, they actually did better offensively with their backup in the game. Their first few series with Gannon were simply pitiful IIRC.

"It was a mess," Gannon said. "We just weren't very good. If I had been healthy, I don't think it would have made a difference."

link to the gannon quote

As you know, I'm a huge homer, and I'll be the first to admit that I can overrate my teams from time to time. But I simply think that they were far and away the best team that year. They went on the road against Oakland and Tennesse and beat them by 14 and 13 points! Their defense and special teams scored 14 points in those games- and they allowed 13. Those are dominating numbers.

Edited: The Ravens actually scored 4 ST/D TDs in 4 playoffs games, not 3 like I initially had.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

jwvdcw

Footballguy
-As I said, I think I give a little more credit to late season success, so a team like the 2004 Pats that lost 2 games early and then became unbeatable gets a small advantage over a team like the 1998 Broncos that lost 2 games late when you are supposed to be at your best.
If you are giving more credit to late season success, then shouldn't you factor in dominant postseason performances. I already listed how dominant the '98 Broncos were in the postseason (outscoring their opponents by a 95 - 32 margin). And one of their losses at the end of the season was a meaningless one to the Dolphins after they had already clinched home field and lost to the Giants the previous week. That is no worse than multiple other SB winners who have lost a week 16 or 17 game once they had home field wrapped up.
Yes, I'm considering moving the 1998 Broncos up.Edited to add: Can you verify that the loss to the Dolphins was a completly meaningless game and they rested their starters for the majority of it(give me a link or something to show this)? If so, I'll move them up, as you all give convincing arguments.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ghost Rider

Footballguy
Maybe think about my rankings this way: If we replayed each season 1000 times, I'm listing the teams in the order of the number of times out of 1000 that I think they would've won the Super Bowl.
Then I would put the Ravens down a lot lower. As awesome as their defense was, they benefited greatly by facing Denver with their backup QB in the first round and Gannon got hurt (by a Raven cheap shot) in the AFC title game. Not to mention that they were statistically dominated by the Titans in the 2nd round, but won because of a fluke fumble return, a return of a FG miss (one of three by Del Greco). I would say that more often than not, the Ravens do not win all three of those games and then win the Super Bowl, too. I think being a wild card team should penalize them a bit, as well. How can a wild card Super Bowl winner be higher than dominant division winning Super Bowl champions like the '98 Broncos or '03 Patriots?
The Ravens won every playoff game by at least 2 scores. Was it really that close? You mention the 2003 Patriots as a team that maybe should be higher: Their biggest blowout of the postseason(10pt win) was closer than the Ravens closest win(13pt win).The Titans scored one early touchdown. After that they didn't sniff the goalline, and as you mentioned the Ravens D/ST actually outscored the Titan's offense in that game. I simply don't think that the Raven's D/ST scores were "flukes" as you called them. They scored 3 TDs in 4 playoff games- when you do it that much, its not a fluke imho.

As for Oakland, they actually did better offensively with their backup in the game. Their first few series with Gannon were simply pitiful IIRC.

"It was a mess," Gannon said. "We just weren't very good. If I had been healthy, I don't think it would have made a difference."

link to the gannon quote

As you know, I'm a huge homer, and I'll be the first to admit that I can overrate my teams from time to time. But I simply think that they were far and away the best team that year. They went on the road against Oakland and Tennesse and beat them by 14 and 13 points! Their defense and special teams scored 14 points in those games- and they allowed 13. Those are dominating numbers.
Good points, but again, I submit that the Ravens are a lot less likely to duplicate that than other comparable recent Super Bowl winners. I would not say they were far and away the best team that year. They were far and away the best team at the END of the season. They were 5-4 after 9 games, which included a five-game stretch of not scoring a touchdown, not to mention a game against Jacksonville where their defense got spanked all game long. Considering the Ravens played 20 games (counting the postseason), through half of it, they were barely above average. They were awesome the second half, though. But their average play through the first part of the season must be taken into consideration.

 

Ghost Rider

Footballguy
Yes, I'm considering moving the 1998 Broncos up.

Edited to add: Can you verify that the loss to the Dolphins was a completly meaningless game and they rested their starters for the majority of it(give me a link or something to show this)? If so, I'll move them up, as you all give convincing arguments.
It was meaningless in that the team looked like they could have given two ####s. The starters played most of the game, IIRC, but anyone who watched that game knows they were treating it like a meaningless game. Regardless, they were still a 17-2 dominant Super Bowl winning team and that deserves a top ranking. Especially over less dominant teams who had lesser records.

 

thesurfshop19

Footballguy
Yes, I'm considering moving the 1998 Broncos up.

Edited to add: Can you verify that the loss to the Dolphins was a completly meaningless game and they rested their starters for the majority of it(give me a link or something to show this)? If so, I'll move them up, as you all give convincing arguments.
It was meaningless in that the team looked like they could have given two ####s. The starters played most of the game, IIRC, but anyone who watched that game knows they were treating it like a meaningless game. Regardless, they were still a 17-2 dominant Super Bowl winning team and that deserves a top ranking. Especially over less dominant teams who had lesser records.
The team had clinched home field throughout before even the Giants game. So after the "perfect record" thing was gone, the Dolphins game was utterly meaningless.Shanahan wrote in his book that he actually used that game to scout the Dolphins because he knew there was a good chance they'd play in the playoffs. He says he used a very vanilla gameplan in the regular season game, then blew the lid off in the playoffs when they blew the same team out 38-3.

 

jwvdcw

Footballguy
10. 2000 Ravens

Possibly the hardest team to rank on my list. I am a Ravens fan, but I honestly can say that I think I'm being objective here. Clearly the big knock on this team is their offense, which went 5 games in a row without scoring a touchdown.However, when your defense only allows one touchdown in 4 playoffs games(only one of which was at home) and your defense/special teams scores 3 touchdowns during that same stretch, you don't need much from your offense. I remember watching their AFC Championship game against Oakland- The Ravens scored on a long TD reception early in the game. I turned and said to my friend, "This game is over." And I meant it. Their defense was simply that good that I was completely confident that one score was enough. They set the all time record by only allowed 165 points, they also blew away the previous record by only allowing 2.69 yards per rush, they allowed under 4000 yards total. And by the end of the season their offense with Jonathon Ogden, Shannon Sharpe, and Jamal Lewis really wasn't as bad as they are made out to be, as they proved by scoring 34 points in the Super Bowl against a team that had just shut out the high-powered Vikings.
The Ravens scored 34 points in the Super Bowl, but 14 of them were from defense and special teams (each had a return for a touchdown). So, I wouldn't give the offense too much credit for that game.
11. 1998 Broncos

They won their first 13 games and flirted with perfection. Terrell Davis made life easy for John Elway, rushing for 2000 yards. We missed out on a fabulous Super Bowl when the 15-1 Vikings were upset by the Falcons in the NFC Championship game when their Gary Anderson, who hadn't missed a FG all year long, missed his first one on a game winning attempt. Instead we got a Denver blowout, capping their dominant playoff run. The only thing that stops this team from being higher on my list is a 12th ranked defense than gave up 300+ points, which is a lot for a Super Bowl winning team.
This team was far better than you are giving them credit for. They dominated opponents week after week and only gave up 300 points because teams scored against them in garbage time of games the Broncos had in hand by the 3rd quarter.

The Broncos outscored their playoff opponents by a margin of 95 - 32.

The Broncos only allowed three touchdowns in the playoffs, a one-yard drive by the Jets following a blocked punt, a kickoff return by Tim Dwight in the touchdown and a TD pass by Chris Chandler with less than two minutes remaining in the Super Bowl blowout.

Do not take anything away from their achievement because they played Atlanta in the SB instead of Minnesota. The Falcons were 14-2 in '98 and were a dominant regular season team. It is not like they were some chump team that got lucky and made the Super Bowl.

16.2002 Bucs

A mini-version of the 2000 Ravens in my opinion. Their defense was tough, giving up only 196 points, forcing 31 interceptions, and leading the league in yards allowed. Brad Johnson and Keyshawn Johnson were servicable for the offense, although their leading rusher (Michael Pittman) only had just over 700 yards rushing, which I found very odd for a Super Bowl champ. In another odd happening, the New Orleans Saints, who didn't even make the playoffs, handed the Bucs 2 of their 4 regular season losses. The Bucs were very impressive in the playoffs though, dominating on the road against Philly in the NFC Championship Game and adding several late scores in the Super Bowl to blow out Oakland, 48-21.
The '02 Bucs were as good or better than the '00 Ravens. Their defense was just as dominant in the playoffs and their offense was far better. The Bucs dominated in all of their playoff wins.
18. 1999 Rams

One of the most overrated teams in NFL history I think. The "Greatest Show on Turf" played one team with a winning record in the regular season, and they lost. One team with a winning record! In the playoffs, they really should have lost to the Bucs in the NFC Championship Game. There was a key play late in the game where a Bucs receiver caught a ball that hit the ground, but the receiver had complete control over the ball even when it hit the ground. They ruled it incomplete. In the offseason, the NFL revised the rulebook to clarify the fact that it should have been a catch. Then in the Super Bowl, they won by one yard over a team that was only there because of a "miracle" kick return. Yes, the Rams stats were impressive, but I believe that 1999 was a weak year all around. The four favored teams coming into the year were Denver, Minnesota, NY Jets, and Atlanta. Elway retired and Terrell Davis got injured, Cunningham missed half the season, Testaverde missed the entire year, and Jamal Anderson missed the entire year. Only the Vikings were able to even be competitive. As a result, there was a lot of mediocrity that year, which enabled the Rams to take advantage and win the Super Bowl. Their offense, while successful, was very one dimensional in the playoffs, as they only rushed for 111 yards during 3 playoff games. I feel like many of the great defenses on this list would've taken advantage of that.
Why should they have lost to the Bucs? Even if Emanuel's catch had been allowed, there is not guarantee they would have scored. They still would have only been around the 20-yard line. To assume they would have automatically scored and won the game if that play had counted is just wrong. Having said that, I do think the Rams are one of the weaker SB winners on this list, but I simply object to your assertion that TB should have won that game.
Thanks again for your comments.-Ok, but even 20 points against a decent defense showed that the Ravens offense wasn't all that bad. For as conservative as they played, their offense scored 17, 10, 16, and 20 points in the playoffs against the best defenses the league had to offer.

-I really like your stat about the Bronco's defense only allowing those 3 "fluke" touchdown drives. I probably will move them up....I'm debating whether or not they belong above the 2 Cowboys teams.

-As I already noted, the Ravens had a better offense, a better defense, and a better special teams than the Bucs. The numbers back this up.

-Certainly Tampa would've had momentum and at least a solid chance of beating St. Louis if the right call was made. I'm not saying that was the only thing that mattered in that game, but when you add that in with all of the other reasons I gave, I believe the 1999 Rams weren't as good as most of the teams on this list.

 

Ghost Rider

Footballguy
The team had clinched home field throughout before even the Giants game. So after the "perfect record" thing was gone, the Dolphins game was utterly meaningless.

Shanahan wrote in his book that he actually used that game to scout the Dolphins because he knew there was a good chance they'd play in the playoffs. He says he used a very vanilla gameplan in the regular season game, then blew the lid off in the playoffs when they blew the same team out 38-3.
That's right. I had totally forgotten about that. Miami was still fighting for a wild card, so they went all-out in that game. The final game of the season saw Denver beat Seattle 28-21 (it was 28-7 until the Seahawks scored two late TD's) in a game where Shanahan did his best to get Elway four touchdown passes. He had 296 going into that game and Shanny obviously wanted him to finish with 300 (in case he retired, which he did). Elway managed to throw four touchdowns in that game and one of them was even a one-yard TD pass to Terrell Davis.

 

jwvdcw

Footballguy
Maybe think about my rankings this way: If we replayed each season 1000 times, I'm listing the teams in the order of the number of times out of 1000 that I think they would've won the Super Bowl. 
Then I would put the Ravens down a lot lower. As awesome as their defense was, they benefited greatly by facing Denver with their backup QB in the first round and Gannon got hurt (by a Raven cheap shot) in the AFC title game. Not to mention that they were statistically dominated by the Titans in the 2nd round, but won because of a fluke fumble return, a return of a FG miss (one of three by Del Greco). I would say that more often than not, the Ravens do not win all three of those games and then win the Super Bowl, too. I think being a wild card team should penalize them a bit, as well. How can a wild card Super Bowl winner be higher than dominant division winning Super Bowl champions like the '98 Broncos or '03 Patriots?
The Ravens won every playoff game by at least 2 scores. Was it really that close? You mention the 2003 Patriots as a team that maybe should be higher: Their biggest blowout of the postseason(10pt win) was closer than the Ravens closest win(13pt win).The Titans scored one early touchdown. After that they didn't sniff the goalline, and as you mentioned the Ravens D/ST actually outscored the Titan's offense in that game. I simply don't think that the Raven's D/ST scores were "flukes" as you called them. They scored 3 TDs in 4 playoff games- when you do it that much, its not a fluke imho.

As for Oakland, they actually did better offensively with their backup in the game. Their first few series with Gannon were simply pitiful IIRC.

"It was a mess," Gannon said. "We just weren't very good. If I had been healthy, I don't think it would have made a difference."

link to the gannon quote

As you know, I'm a huge homer, and I'll be the first to admit that I can overrate my teams from time to time. But I simply think that they were far and away the best team that year. They went on the road against Oakland and Tennesse and beat them by 14 and 13 points! Their defense and special teams scored 14 points in those games- and they allowed 13. Those are dominating numbers.
Good points, but again, I submit that the Ravens are a lot less likely to duplicate that than other comparable recent Super Bowl winners. I would not say they were far and away the best team that year. They were far and away the best team at the END of the season. They were 5-4 after 9 games, which included a five-game stretch of not scoring a touchdown, not to mention a game against Jacksonville where their defense got spanked all game long. Considering the Ravens played 20 games (counting the postseason), through half of it, they were barely above average. They were awesome the second half, though. But their average play through the first part of the season must be taken into consideration.
I should have said this earlier, but I did give teams more leeway(sp?) if they made a big roster change and then changed their season around. For example, I penalize the 1994 49ers for losing big to Philly because the team that lost to Philly was essentially the same team that they had at the end of the year. However, with the 2000 Ravens I give their early season offensive struggles somewhat of a free pass because it was before they found their quarterback, which is obviousy a huge thing, and obviously made them an entirely different team.As I noted in my initial post, this was a hard ranking, and I probably spent more time mulling this over than any other ranking.

 

Ghost Rider

Footballguy
Thanks again for your comments.

-Ok, but even 20 points against a decent defense showed that the Ravens offense wasn't all that bad. For as conservative as they played, their offense scored 17, 10, 16, and 20 points in the playoffs against the best defenses the league had to offer.
Hmmm, I am not sure I would call the Broncos and Raiders defenses that season the best the league had to offer. The Titans had a great defense and the Ravens only scored 10 points on offense against them. The Giants had just played a great defensive game against Minnesota (although what did you expect from a dome team playing in the cold in NY in January?). But hey, I will give the Ravens offense credit where credit is due. They made enough plays in each game to win (like the 99-yard TD pass to Sharpe against Oakland), so, in that respect, they did their job.

-I really like your stat about the Bronco's defense only allowing those 3 "fluke" touchdown drives. I probably will move them up....I'm debating whether or not they belong above the 2 Cowboys teams.
I would say the '92 Cowboys were about as good as the '98 Broncos. '93? I would say no. I think it is important to remember that the Dallas Cowboys, because of their name and reputation, are always going to be a bit overrated.

-As I already noted, the Ravens had a better offense, a better defense, and a better special teams than the Bucs. The numbers back this up.
I will concede that, but the Bucs were a more dominant playoff team, winning by scores of 34-3 (I think), 27-10 and 48-21.
-Certainly Tampa would've had momentum and at least a solid chance of beating St. Louis if the right call was made. I'm not saying that was the only thing that mattered in that game, but when you add that in with all of the other reasons I gave, I believe the 1999 Rams weren't as good as most of the teams on this list.
I agree that the Rams weren't that impressive of a Super Bowl-winning team, but again, their win against TB was legit, especially when you consider how well TB's defense was playing. And their 2nd round win over Minnesota was more impressive than the final score would indicate. The score was 49-17 with about ten minutes to go before Minnesota tacked on some late scores (aided by recoveries of onside kicks).

 

Ghost Rider

Footballguy
I should have said this earlier, but I did give teams more leeway(sp?) if they made a big roster change and then changed their season around. For example, I penalize the 1994 49ers for losing big to Philly because the team that lost to Philly was essentially the same team that they had at the end of the year. However, with the 2000 Ravens I give their early season offensive struggles somewhat of a free pass because it was before they found their quarterback, which is obviousy a huge thing, and obviously made them an entirely different team.
I do not think you should give them a free pass for their early season struggles or for changing QB's. If so, shouldn't you put the '01 Patriots higher since they were 0-2 without Brady at QB? Or what about the '93 Cowboys? They lost their first two games when Emmitt was holding out, but were 15-2 once he came back. See what I mean? You have to factor in ENTIRE seasons. After all, we are talking about how good a team was over the course of the entire season, right? Not just a stretch.
 

thesurfshop19

Footballguy
1. 1985 Bears

2. 1989 49ers

3. 1991 Redskins

4. 2004 Patriots

5. 1994 49ers

6. 1996 Packers

7. 1998 Broncos

8. 1992 Cowboys

9. 1993 Cowboys

10. 1986 Giants

11. 2000 Ravens

12. 2003 Pats

13. 1997 Broncos

14. 1995 Cowboys

15. 1990 Giants

16.2002 Bucs

17. 2001 Pats

18. 1999 Rams

19. 1987 Redskins

20. 1988 49ers
I must say that this is a very, very good list (the one as of 1:58 PM on 11/28). It's so hard to find differentiation across years among teams that won it all -- you can't use the "they just win" argument so you have to consider less obvious factors.I think I might move the 2002 Bucs up a few spots to #13 ahead of the 1997 Broncos, but beyond that I don't really see much to argue with.

You'll get some nonsense for rating the 1999 Rams low, but their playoff performance simply wasn't that great compared to what most of the other teams on the list did. Still, they're a great story and the 2001 team would have been a top-5 team if they'd beaten the Patriots.

 

jwvdcw

Footballguy
I should have said this earlier, but I did give teams more leeway(sp?) if they made a big roster change and then changed their season around. For example, I penalize the 1994 49ers for losing big to Philly because the team that lost to Philly was essentially the same team that they had at the end of the year. However, with the 2000 Ravens I give their early season offensive struggles somewhat of a free pass because it was before they found their quarterback, which is obviousy a huge thing, and obviously made them an entirely different team.
I do not think you should give them a free pass for their early season struggles or for changing QB's. If so, shouldn't you put the '01 Patriots higher since they were 0-2 without Brady at QB? Or what about the '93 Cowboys? They lost their first two games when Emmitt was holding out, but were 15-2 once he came back. See what I mean? You have to factor in ENTIRE seasons. After all, we are talking about how good a team was over the course of the entire season, right? Not just a stretch.
Yes, indeed. In fact, I noted in my initial post that I was giving the 1993 Cowboys a pass on their 0-2 start. And I didn't even mention the 2001 Pats 0-2 as a reason for their low ranking- there were other reasons.
 

jwvdcw

Footballguy
1. 1985 Bears

2. 1989 49ers

3. 1991 Redskins

4. 2004 Patriots

5. 1994 49ers

6. 1996 Packers

7. 1998 Broncos

8. 1992 Cowboys

9. 1993 Cowboys

10. 1986 Giants

11. 2000 Ravens

12. 2003 Pats

13. 1997 Broncos

14. 1995 Cowboys

15. 1990 Giants

16.2002 Bucs

17. 2001 Pats

18. 1999 Rams

19. 1987 Redskins

20. 1988 49ers
I must say that this is a very, very good list (the one as of 1:58 PM on 11/28). It's so hard to find differentiation across years among teams that won it all -- you can't use the "they just win" argument so you have to consider less obvious factors.I think I might move the 2002 Bucs up a few spots to #13 ahead of the 1997 Broncos, but beyond that I don't really see much to argue with.

You'll get some nonsense for rating the 1999 Rams low, but their playoff performance simply wasn't that great compared to what most of the other teams on the list did. Still, they're a great story and the 2001 team would have been a top-5 team if they'd beaten the Patriots.
Thanks for the kind words.Very interesting part in bold, and I must say I never considered that....

The 2001 St Louis Rams went 14-2 with a 3pt and 7pt loss. They were by far the best offensive team, and their defense was 7th in points allowed and 3rd in yards allowed. They only won the NFC Championship by 5 games, and then of course lost in the Super Bowl.

If they had won the Super Bowl, I think I'd put them at #8, although I can certainly understand why you'd say top 5.

Random question: Who was the better team, the 2001 Rams or the 1998 Vikings?

 

Ghost Rider

Footballguy
The 2001 St Louis Rams went 14-2 with a 3pt and 7pt loss. They were by far the best offensive team, and their defense was 7th in points allowed and 3rd in yards allowed. They only won the NFC Championship by 5 games, and then of course lost in the Super Bowl.

If they had won the Super Bowl, I think I'd put them at #8, although I can certainly understand why you'd say top 5.

Random question: Who was the better team, the 2001 Rams or the 1998 Vikings?
The 2001 Rams are probably one of the best teams to not win a Super Bowl. Blame Mike Martz for that loss, though. There is no way they should have lost to the Patriots. I would say they were better than the '98 Vikings. The Vikings' defense was not very good and they lost at home in the NFC title game after beating a weak Arizona team in the 2nd round. The Rams at least crushed GB in the 2nd round and beat a very good Philly team in the NFC title game before losing to New England.

 

thesurfshop19

Footballguy
Thanks for the kind words.

Very interesting part in bold, and I must say I never considered that....

The 2001 St Louis Rams went 14-2 with a 3pt and 7pt loss. They were by far the best offensive team, and their defense was 7th in points allowed and 3rd in yards allowed. They only won the NFC Championship by 5 games, and then of course lost in the Super Bowl.

If they had won the Super Bowl, I think I'd put them at #8, although I can certainly understand why you'd say top 5.

Random question: Who was the better team, the 2001 Rams or the 1998 Vikings?
I think I'd have to go with the 2001 Rams.The 1998 Vikings lost at home in a game that they may have actually been outplayed. From the box score, we see that the Falcons actually out-gained the Vikings and won not only because of a fluke FG miss but also because of the ensuing clutch TD drive that the Falcons engineered to tie it.

The 2001 Rams, on the other hand, lost a game on a "neutral field" (mostly rooting for the Patriots, IIRC) in which they out-gained New England by 160 yards. They turned it over 3 times because that's the way their offense played -- it took risks and they backfired this time.

Close call, though. What about the 1999 Jags, who were 15-0 against everyone except the Titans (0-3)?

 

Ghost Rider

Footballguy
What about the 1999 Jags, who were 15-0 against everyone except the Titans (0-3)?
Absolutely not. While I give the Jaguars all the credit for winning all of those games that season, they won way too many close games against far lesser opponents, as opposed to the '98 Vikings and '01 Rams, who blew out opponents on a regular basis. Jacksonville did rout Miami in the playoffs 62-7 that season, but that was the exception, not the norm for that team. And getting punked at home 33-14 by the Titans in the AFC title game hurts them, too.
 

jwvdcw

Footballguy
Interesting hijack here about the best team of the past 20 years to not win a super bowl. A few more candidates:-86 Bears went 14-2 and only allowed 187 points(12 points less then the 85 team allowed) before losing to the Redskins in the 2nd round of the playoffs-1990 Bills went 13-3 and were one missed FG away from a Super Bowl-1992 49ers were 14-2 and outscored opponents 431-236. Lost by 10 to a great Dallas team in the NFC Championship.-2004 Steelers- I'm sure everyone remembers the story there.

 

Chase Stuart

Footballguy
I'll throw my hat in for other great teams to not win the Super Bowl...[homer]The 1998 Jets...Went 12-1 with Testaverde as starter. Dominant defense (they ranked 2nd in PA by only a single point, and allowed 50 points in the first two weeks). Testaverde was excellent with a QB rating over 100.The one loss was a random one point loss to the Colts, where IIRC Marshall Faulk made a crazy play on a 4th and 15 that helped win the game.The Jets were also leading in the third quarter 10-0 against the Broncos in the AFCC, very impressive considering how dominant the Broncos used to be at home.And of course, great coaching (something the '98 Vikings and '01 Rams) lacked.[/homer]

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ghost Rider

Footballguy
I'll throw my hat in for other great teams to not win the Super Bowl...

[homer]The 1998 Jets...

Went 12-1 with Testaverde as starter. Dominant defense (they ranked 2nd in PA by only a single point, and allowed 50 points in the first two weeks). Testaverde was excellent with a QB rating over 100.

The one loss was a random one point loss to the Colts, where IIRC Marshall Faulk made a crazy play on a 4th and 15 that helped win the game.

The Jets were also leading in the third quarter 10-0 against the Broncos in the AFCC, very impressive considering how dominant the Broncos used to be at home.

And of course, great coaching (something the '98 Vikings and '01 Rams) lacked.[/homer]
No. The '98 Jets were a very good team, but I can think of at least 10 non-SB winning teams from the last ten years that were better. 13-5 was a nice record, but there have been better teams with better records. The Jets did play good defense for the first two plus quarters of that AFC title game, but remember that the weather conditions were terrible and neither team was scoring. Once the Jets scored after blocking that punt at the 1, Denver's offense came to life and drilled them for 20 points before the 3rd quarter was even over.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top