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

[The_Man]

People always forget about the 2000 Titans. They lost 3 regular season games by a total of 7 points, had the #1 rushing attack, the #1 defense (allowing slightly fewer yards than the legendary Ravens) and would have rolled through the post-season with ease to avenge their "1 yard short" Super Bowl loss to the Rams a year earlier -- except that the Ravens owned them.I agree that people continue to underrate that 2000 Ravens team. I think they and the 91 Redskins are the only two teams since the 85 Bears to outscore their opponents by a 2-1 margin for the entire season.And even more impressive than their record for fewest points allowed was their rushing defense -- 970 yards for the SEASON with a 2.7 ypc against. That's an average of 60 yards per game. That is a record that I believe nobody will ever come close to and is indicative of their true dominance.

 

[dgreen]

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.

What about the 2004 Eagles? Two of their three losses were in the last two weeks with backups. Offensive rankings of 8th in yards and 8th in points and defensive rankings of 10th in yards and 3rd in points. They cruised through the NFC playoffs. Their one real blemish is being spanked in Pittsburgh in the regular season, but so were the Patriots (who you have as the 4th best SB team).

 

[Chase Stuart]

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.

13-5 is a lot different from 13-1. The Jets went 13-1 with Testaverde as starter until the game in Denver. The weather conditions were bad that day, but the Jets also self destructed with four terrible fumbles. Obviously that's a pretty rare occurence. I remember Martin had one early, Byars had one at about the 20 yard line, Van Dyke had one late in the 4th and I think a KR was fumbled.

Regardless, if that game was on neutral field and the Broncos hadn't been cheaters , the Jets probably would have won the Super Bowl that year. They would have beaten Atlanta without much of a fight IMO. (They beat them that year soundly, but Chandler was injured.)

 

[The_Man]

Interesting thing about the 85 Bears -- they could have become a genuine dynasty in the following years except that they were owned by the Redskins of that era.In 1986, the defending Super Bowl champion Bears went 14-2 and were seemingly headed to an epic NFC Championship game vs. the 14-2 Giants (what an unbelievable battle of defenses that would have been) when they got spanked by the Wild Card Redskins in a home divisional playoff game.The next year (a strike season) the Bears went 11-4 and again hosted the Redskins in the divisional playoffs. The day before, the Wild Card Vikings had shocked the #1 seed 49ers, meaning the Bears would host the NFC Championship game the following week if they beat the Redskins. Instead, the Skins beat them again and went on to squeak past the Vikings in the Championship game and then whipped the Broncos to win a very unexpected Super Bowl title.

 

[Chase Stuart]

People always forget about the 2000 Titans. They lost 3 regular season games by a total of 7 points, had the #1 rushing attack, the #1 defense (allowing slightly fewer yards than the legendary Ravens) and would have rolled through the post-season with ease to avenge their "1 yard short" Super Bowl loss to the Rams a year earlier -- except that the Ravens owned them.

I agree that people continue to underrate that 2000 Ravens team. I think they and the 91 Redskins are the only two teams since the 85 Bears to outscore their opponents by a 2-1 margin for the entire season.

And even more impressive than their record for fewest points allowed was their rushing defense -- 970 yards for the SEASON with a 2.7 ypc against. That's an average of 60 yards per game. That is a record that I believe nobody will ever come close to and is indicative of their true dominance.

I think the Ravens would have had a lot of trouble with a great passing team though.2000 Giants: 17th in pass attempts

2000 Raiders: 25th in pass attempts

2000 Titans: 26th in pass attempts

The Jets had success passing on the Ravens the last game of the regular season that year, with Testaverde throwing for 481 yards. That's despite below average WRs, and well, Testaverde. If the Ravens had played the 2000 Rams, they would have had a lot of trouble keeping up IMO.

 

[Ghost Rider]

13-5 is a lot different from 13-1. The Jets went 13-1 with Testaverde as starter until the game in Denver.

The weather conditions were bad that day, but the Jets also self destructed with four terrible fumbles. Obviously that's a pretty rare occurence. I remember Martin had one early, Byars had one at about the 20 yard line, Van Dyke had one late in the 4th and I think a KR was fumbled.

Regardless, if that game was on neutral field and the Broncos hadn't been cheaters , the Jets probably would have won the Super Bowl that year. They would have beaten Atlanta without much of a fight IMO. (They beat them that year soundly, but Chandler was injured.)

You cannot pick and choose what games you want to count. The games without Testaverde are still a part of who that team was that season. The Jets were 13-5 that season. It is that simple. You can talk about neutral fields all you want, but Denver earned home field by being the BETTER TEAM throughout the season.

And that fumble on the kick return was weather-related. Elam's kickoff came up short because of the wind and when it hit around the 25, it bounced back towards the oncoming Denver special teams players. It was a flukish play, but it all worked out in the end.

 

[The_Man]

That Jets' performance is the most misleading thing in the world when it comes to the Ravens 2000 season. If anything, it was indicative of how the Ravens run defense was so dominant -- the Jets came out in a hurry-up offense and threw 69 times because they knew it was literally impossible for them to run the ball. Plus Vinny had 5 turnovers.It was also a meaningless Week 17 game. But, Chase, if you're going to talk about the 98 Jets under Vinny alone, let's talk about the 00 Ravens under Dilfer. They were 11-1 and outscored their opponents by 294-96, an average score of 25-8. That's much more compelling to me than what Vinny did in a 69-attempt game (that the Jets lost by 14).

 

[Chase Stuart]

13-5 is a lot different from 13-1. The Jets went 13-1 with Testaverde as starter until the game in Denver.

The weather conditions were bad that day, but the Jets also self destructed with four terrible fumbles. Obviously that's a pretty rare occurence. I remember Martin had one early, Byars had one at about the 20 yard line, Van Dyke had one late in the 4th and I think a KR was fumbled.

Regardless, if that game was on neutral field and the Broncos hadn't been cheaters , the Jets probably would have won the Super Bowl that year. They would have beaten Atlanta without much of a fight IMO. (They beat them that year soundly, but Chandler was injured.)

You cannot pick and choose what games you want to count. The games without Testaverde are still a part of who that team was that season. The Jets were 13-5 that season. It is that simple. You can talk about neutral fields all you want, but Denver earned home field by being the BETTER TEAM throughout the season.

And that fumble on the kick return was weather-related. Elam's kickoff came up short because of the wind and when it hit around the 25, it bounced back towards the oncoming Denver special teams players. It was a flukish play, but it all worked out in the end.

Well I agree it's simple to say the Jets were 13-5. It's also simple to say Miami beat up on Denver that year. And simple to say the Eagles were 14-4 last year. But sometimes you need to look beyond the numbers.And yes, that KR one was weather releated. But I didn't catch you with that cheating comment ?

 

[Chase Stuart]

That Jets' performance is the most misleading thing in the world when it comes to the Ravens 2000 season. If anything, it was indicative of how the Ravens run defense was so dominant -- the Jets came out in a hurry-up offense and threw 69 times because they knew it was literally impossible for them to run the ball. Plus Vinny had 5 turnovers.

It was also a meaningless Week 17 game. But, Chase, if you're going to talk about the 98 Jets under Vinny alone, let's talk about the 00 Ravens under Dilfer. They were 11-1 and outscored their opponents by 294-96, an average score of 25-8. That's much more compelling to me than what Vinny did in a 69-attempt game (that the Jets lost by 14).

The game wasn't meaningless for the Ravens or the Jets.I don't have a problem talking about the Ravens alone under Dilfer. But the hurry up/spread offense caused problems for the Ravens, and the Jets didn't have the personnel to run that well. A team like the Rams IMO would have been much more effective, and probably would have put up at least 3 TDs on the Ravens.

 

[Ghost Rider]

That Jets' performance is the most misleading thing in the world when it comes to the Ravens 2000 season. If anything, it was indicative of how the Ravens run defense was so dominant -- the Jets came out in a hurry-up offense and threw 69 times because they knew it was literally impossible for them to run the ball. Plus Vinny had 5 turnovers.

It was also a meaningless Week 17 game. But, Chase, if you're going to talk about the 98 Jets under Vinny alone, let's talk about the 00 Ravens under Dilfer. They were 11-1 and outscored their opponents by 294-96, an average score of 25-8. That's much more compelling to me than what Vinny did in a 69-attempt game (that the Jets lost by 14).

That was not a meaningless game for the Ravens. They needed to win to ensure they hosted a first round wild card game instead of going on the road for one.

Well I agree it's simple to say the Jets were 13-5. It's also simple to say Miami beat up on Denver that year. And simple to say the Eagles were 14-4 last year. But sometimes you need to look beyond the numbers.

And yes, that KR one was weather releated. But I didn't catch you with that cheating comment ?

Yes, you do have to look beyond the numbers, but losing a meaningful game with a different QB is more important to a team's overall greatness than losing a meaningless game late in the season, IMO.As for the cheating comment, I assume you are referring to Denver's supposed cut blocks, right?

 

[simmonjm]

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

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.

No fishing trip here. It is common knowledge that you do not properly acknowledge or show the proper respect to the Dallas Cowboys. Period. I am not by any means fishing just dont like to see that #7 ranking is the highest the Cowboys have attained. I mean stats are stats but they do not take into account intangibles and talent. I mean how can you possibly incorporate strength of schedule from year to year. The regular season is only good for a playoff ticket meaning that the playoffs are what matters. Dallas won 3 superbowls in 4 years where is that stat? They obviously had a lot talent to be able to repeat. All im saying is that is that I think they deserve to be higher.

 

[Chase Stuart]

That Jets' performance is the most misleading thing in the world when it comes to the Ravens 2000 season. If anything, it was indicative of how the Ravens run defense was so dominant -- the Jets came out in a hurry-up offense and threw 69 times because they knew it was literally impossible for them to run the ball. Plus Vinny had 5 turnovers.

It was also a meaningless Week 17 game. But, Chase, if you're going to talk about the 98 Jets under Vinny alone, let's talk about the 00 Ravens under Dilfer. They were 11-1 and outscored their opponents by 294-96, an average score of 25-8. That's much more compelling to me than what Vinny did in a 69-attempt game (that the Jets lost by 14).

That was not a meaningless game for the Ravens. They needed to win to ensure they hosted a first round wild card game instead of going on the road for one.

Well I agree it's simple to say the Jets were 13-5. It's also simple to say Miami beat up on Denver that year. And simple to say the Eagles were 14-4 last year. But sometimes you need to look beyond the numbers.

And yes, that KR one was weather releated. But I didn't catch you with that cheating comment ?

Yes, you do have to look beyond the numbers, but losing a meaningful game with a different QB is more important to a team's overall greatness than losing a meaningless game late in the season, IMO.As for the cheating comment, I assume you are referring to Denver's supposed cut blocks, right?

Cut blocks...that's any Denver team.I'm referring to the Broncos cheating specifically with respect to 1998.

 

[Ghost Rider]

I'm referring to the Broncos cheating specifically with respect to 1998.

Can you please explain this a little better?

 

[dgreen]

All im saying is that is that I think they deserve to be higher.

Which of the following are they better than?1. 1985 Bears

2. 1989 49ers

3. 1991 Redskins

4. 2004 Patriots

5. 1994 49ers

6. 1996 Packers

7. 1998 Broncos

 

[The_Man]

That game was meaningless for the Ravens. At the time, the AFC Central had 6 teams, meaning the Ravens only had 3 games vs. the NFC. They were 9-3 in the AFC heading into that game, while Denver was 7-4 in the AFC heading into their last game. Denver won to move to 8-4, but even if the Ravens had lost to the Jets they still would have been 9-4 in the AFC and gotten to host the Broncos in the Wild Card by virtue of that half-game advantage.

 

[Chase Stuart]

That game was meaningless for the Ravens. At the time, the AFC Central had 6 teams, meaning the Ravens only had 3 games vs. the NFC. They were 9-3 in the AFC heading into that game, while Denver was 7-4 in the AFC heading into their last game. Denver won to move to 8-4, but even if the Ravens had lost to the Jets they still would have been 9-4 in the AFC and gotten to host the Broncos in the Wild Card by virtue of that half-game advantage.

Incorrect.The Ravens could have won the division if they beat the Jets and the Titans lost to the Cowboys. That game meant a lot to the Ravens, since Tennessee played on Monday Night in week 17.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I'm referring to the Broncos cheating specifically with respect to 1998.

Can you please explain this a little better?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Sep17.html

 

[Ghost Rider]

I'm referring to the Broncos cheating specifically with respect to 1998.

Can you please explain this a little better?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Sep17.html

There is still no proof that the Broncos gained a competitive advantage as a result of this.

 

[simmonjm]

All im saying is that is that I think they deserve to be higher.

Which of the following are they better than?1. 1985 Bears

2. 1989 49ers

3. 1991 Redskins

4. 2004 Patriots

5. 1994 49ers

6. 1996 Packers

7. 1998 Broncos

Homerism would be at #1 but realistically put them at 3 or 4. A massive offensive line, Aikman E. Smith, Irvin, A. Harper, and Novacek arguably one of the best offenses of the modern era. This offense possesed the big play ability but mostly grinded out drives controlling time of possession and games in general. They also beat a formidable 49ers team in the championship game and their defense wasnt to bad either.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I'm referring to the Broncos cheating specifically with respect to 1998.

Can you please explain this a little better?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Sep17.html

There is still no proof that the Broncos gained a competitive advantage as a result of this.

That's why I threw in the .But there's no doubt that this gives fuel to fire for Broncos haters.

For what it's worth, I've said several times that the 1998 Broncos team was one of the more underrated SB champions around. There's nothing that team couldn't do. Plus they did it all season with a target on their back.

 

[Ghost Rider]

All im saying is that is that I think they deserve to be higher.

Which of the following are they better than?1. 1985 Bears

2. 1989 49ers

3. 1991 Redskins

4. 2004 Patriots

5. 1994 49ers

6. 1996 Packers

7. 1998 Broncos

Homerism would be at #1 but realistically put them at 3 or 4. A massive offensive line, Aikman E. Smith, Irvin, A. Harper, and Novacek arguably one of the best offenses of the modern era. This offense possesed the big play ability but mostly grinded out drives controlling time of possession and games in general. They also beat a formidable 49ers team in the championship game and their defense wasnt to bad either.

The '98 Broncos' offense was better. Elway, even at 38, was still better than Aikman. Terrell Davis was better that year than Emmitt Smith ever was (although Smith is obviously better all-time). Sharpe, McCaffrey and Sharper were better than Dallas' trio (Alvin Harper is easily the worst of the 6 receivers). And Denver's O-Line was as good or better than Dallas'.Dallas' offense was great, don't get me wrong, but the 49ers, Broncos, Rams and Colts have all had better ones since.

 

[Ghost Rider]

But there's no doubt that this gives fuel to fire for Broncos haters.

Indeed.

For what it's worth, I've said several times that the 1998 Broncos team was one of the more underrated SB champions around. There's nothing that team couldn't do. Plus they did it all season with a target on their back.

Well said.

 

[dgreen]

All im saying is that is that I think they deserve to be higher.

Which of the following are they better than?1. 1985 Bears

2. 1989 49ers

3. 1991 Redskins

4. 2004 Patriots

5. 1994 49ers

6. 1996 Packers

7. 1998 Broncos

Homerism would be at #1 but realistically put them at 3 or 4. A massive offensive line, Aikman E. Smith, Irvin, A. Harper, and Novacek arguably one of the best offenses of the modern era. This offense possesed the big play ability but mostly grinded out drives controlling time of possession and games in general. They also beat a formidable 49ers team in the championship game and their defense wasnt to bad either.

I don't think jwvdcw's rankings take into account who the players were, only how productive they were. And, I think that's the best way to do such rankings. The '91 Skins team is sometimes overlooked because of the lack of super stars on the team. But, they were far more dominant that year than any of those three Cowboys SB teams.

 

[redman]

Great, great post, jwvdcw. And good discussion fellas.

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.

What about the 2004 Eagles? Two of their three losses were in the last two weeks with backups. Offensive rankings of 8th in yards and 8th in points and defensive rankings of 10th in yards and 3rd in points. They cruised through the NFC playoffs. Their one real blemish is being spanked in Pittsburgh in the regular season, but so were the Patriots (who you have as the 4th best SB team).

It's just outside the timeframe, however the 1983 Redskins deserve mention here. IMHO they were the best Redskins team of all time, but few people mention them in such discussions because they lost (badly) in the Super Bowl to the Raiders, a team they'd beaten in a shootout during the regular season. Their 2 regular season losses both were by 1 point. They were the highest scoring team of all time (541 points) until their record was broken barely by the 1998 Vikings - for perspective, they outscored the famous '99 Rams team by an average of one point per game.

The most remarkable stat? How about a +42 turnover ratio for the season?

 

[wharf rat]

10. 1986 Giants

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

I was only 4 years old at the time and this team isn't as famous as some of the others of their generation, so I'm going pretty much exclusively on stats with this ranking. However, the stats are very impressive: A 14-2 record and wins of 49-3, 17-0, and 39-20 in the playoffs. Maybe some of you can chime in here a bit and I'll edit some more stuff in.

homer alert...I'd probably rank the '86 Giants ahead of the '93 Cowboys, maybe even the '92 team. The Giants were dominant in '86. 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.

It was the season that LT won the league MVP with 20 1/2 sacks. He was the first defensive player to win the award since Alan Page in 1971. They cruised into the Super Bowl outscoring their opponents 66-3 against two teams that were a combined 24-5-1. The SB was never in doubt against a very good Broncos team that was 13-5.

 

[The_Man]

Super Bowl was never in doubt? Weren't they losing at halftime?

 

[jwvdcw]

People always forget about the 2000 Titans. They lost 3 regular season games by a total of 7 points, had the #1 rushing attack, the #1 defense (allowing slightly fewer yards than the legendary Ravens) and would have rolled through the post-season with ease to avenge their "1 yard short" Super Bowl loss to the Rams a year earlier -- except that the Ravens owned them.

I agree that people continue to underrate that 2000 Ravens team. I think they and the 91 Redskins are the only two teams since the 85 Bears to outscore their opponents by a 2-1 margin for the entire season.

And even more impressive than their record for fewest points allowed was their rushing defense -- 970 yards for the SEASON with a 2.7 ypc against. That's an average of 60 yards per game. That is a record that I believe nobody will ever come close to and is indicative of their true dominance.

I did not know about the bolded part....thats an amazing stat. I might add that in to my commentary, and might even consider moving them up after hearing that.

 

[David Yudkin]

People always forget about the 2000 Titans. They lost 3 regular season games by a total of 7 points, had the #1 rushing attack, the #1 defense (allowing slightly fewer yards than the legendary Ravens) and would have rolled through the post-season with ease to avenge their "1 yard short" Super Bowl loss to the Rams a year earlier -- except that the Ravens owned them.

I agree that people continue to underrate that 2000 Ravens team. I think they and the 91 Redskins are the only two teams since the 85 Bears to outscore their opponents by a 2-1 margin for the entire season.

And even more impressive than their record for fewest points allowed was their rushing defense -- 970 yards for the SEASON with a 2.7 ypc against. That's an average of 60 yards per game. That is a record that I believe nobody will ever come close to and is indicative of their true dominance.

I did not know about the bolded part....thats an amazing stat. I might add that in to my commentary, and might even consider moving them up after hearing that.

Also 96 GB 456/210 and 99 STL 526/242. And this year's IND team could do it (currently 305/152).

 

[jwvdcw]

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

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.

No fishing trip here. It is common knowledge that you do not properly acknowledge or show the proper respect to the Dallas Cowboys. Period. I am not by any means fishing just dont like to see that #7 ranking is the highest the Cowboys have attained. I mean stats are stats but they do not take into account intangibles and talent. I mean how can you possibly incorporate strength of schedule from year to year. The regular season is only good for a playoff ticket meaning that the playoffs are what matters. Dallas won 3 superbowls in 4 years where is that stat? They obviously had a lot talent to be able to repeat. All im saying is that is that I think they deserve to be higher.

It is common knowledge that I don't properly acknowledge or show the porper respect to the Dallas Cowboys? Huh? You must have missed the 100+ times I've argued for Emmitt Smith as a better RB than Barry Sanders. You must have missed the thread where I argued for Drew Bledsoe as an underrated QB. You must have missed the thread where I argued that Keyshawn Johnson is very underrated because while his numbers aren't great he does little things to win games. What are you basing this absurd statement on?I totally agree that stats don't always tell the whole story...but these stats aren't even close! The Cowboys beat the Redskins in two stats, and one of those was punting. You're right- sometimes stats lie. Sometimes the best team doesn't always win. But what you're doing is like arguing that a team that lost 45-10 was really the better team- its such a blowout that you just can't argue against it.

"won 3 superbowls in 4 years where is that stat?" - That stat is reflected in that the Cowboys have 3 teams on this list compared to only 2 for the Redskins. Congratulations on that. That doesn't change how good any one of those teams was individually.

My friend, you are the one being the homer. The Cowboys lost 3 games that year and got blown out by the Eagles. They are a great team, and maybe I could see an argument for why they belong in the top 4 on this list. But the top 3 are in a tier above the Cowboys...plain and simple. The stats back that up, the records back that up, and most "experts" will agree.

HERE is a link to ESPN's rankings of the teams of all time. You'll notice that the 1991 Redskins are 4th and actually are the 2nd highest team from this era(last 20 years), so I can't see how you can possibly call me a homer. The 1992 Cowboys did not make the top 10, nor do they even appear in the "others receiving votes" category.

So lets review the facts:

1. The Cowboys don't match up whatsoever statistically.

2. An impartial source(ESPN) ranked the Skins #4 all time, while the Cowboys didn't even get "others receiving votes."

3. You are the only person here so far that has critiqued this ranking.

Do you really think you're not being totally biased here?

Honestly, after hearing some critiques I'm a lot closer to dropping the Cowboys below teams like the 86 Giants and 00 Ravens than moving them up. I love Emmitt and that o-line, but I actually think that Irvin and Aikman were overrated.

 

[jwvdcw]

10. 1986 Giants

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

I was only 4 years old at the time and this team isn't as famous as some of the others of their generation, so I'm going pretty much exclusively on stats with this ranking. However, the stats are very impressive: A 14-2 record and wins of 49-3, 17-0, and 39-20 in the playoffs. Maybe some of you can chime in here a bit and I'll edit some more stuff in.

homer alert...I'd probably rank the '86 Giants ahead of the '93 Cowboys, maybe even the '92 team. The Giants were dominant in '86. 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.

It was the season that LT won the league MVP with 20 1/2 sacks. He was the first defensive player to win the award since Alan Page in 1971. They cruised into the Super Bowl outscoring their opponents 66-3 against two teams that were a combined 24-5-1. The SB was never in doubt against a very good Broncos team that was 13-5.

I will probably move this team and the 87 and 88 teams around a bit. As I said, I don't know a whole lot about those seasons.....Keep bringing the feedback- hopefully some non-homers too just for impartiality.

 

[jwvdcw]

Yudkin, thanks for editing the stats into my post. Everyone feel free to keep feeding me more and more stats and arguments and I'll add in things that I think are worthwhile.

 

[jwvdcw]

Just fyi, here was my original list so you can see how it has changed:1. 85 Bears2. 91 Skins3. 89 49ers4. 04 Pats5. 94 49ers6. 96 Pack7. 92 Cowboys8. 93 Cowboys9. 86 Giants10. 00 Ravens11. 98 Broncos12. 03 Pats13. 97 Broncos14. 95 Cowboys15. 90 Giants16. 02 Bucs17. 88 49ers18. 87 Skins19. 01 Pats20. 99 RamsRight now I'm contemplating two things: Moving the Skins to #2 and moving the Bucs up a spot or two....Thoughts on this?

 

[BassNBrew]

Just curious as to the rationale about the Pats placing so high. There performance v. Carolina was less then impressive relative to many of the other teams on the list.By the way, great thread jwcdvsheihfos

 

[Stillers Jr.]

That as a fun read. Good work! Thanks!(even tho ur a Ravens fan)

 

[DropKick]

Nice work. I don't disagree with your ranking of the 2001 Patriots but think the tuck rule has no place in your analysis. Games are won and lost all the time with controversial calls. I can assure you there was more injustice before instant replay. There was nothing worse than knowing the call was wrong without any chance of correction.Despite its obscurity, I've seen the tuck rule used 4 or 5 times, including one with Testaverde earlier that same season. To say New England wasn't the "true victor" is pushing it.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Just fyi, here was my original list so you can see how it has changed:

1. 85 Bears

2. 91 Skins

3. 89 49ers

4. 04 Pats

5. 94 49ers

6. 96 Pack

7. 92 Cowboys

8. 93 Cowboys

9. 86 Giants

10. 00 Ravens

11. 98 Broncos

12. 03 Pats

13. 97 Broncos

14. 95 Cowboys

15. 90 Giants

16. 02 Bucs

17. 88 49ers

18. 87 Skins

19. 01 Pats

20. 99 Rams

Right now I'm contemplating two things: Moving the Skins to #2 and moving the Bucs up a spot or two....Thoughts on this?

Yes. I'd say if you polled 99 other people, only one list out of 100 would have the 90 Giants more than five spots ahead of the 99 Rams. About 90 of the 99 would have the 99 Rams ahead, with about half of those having them significantly ahead.

 

[jwvdcw]

Just fyi, here was my original list so you can see how it has changed:

1. 85 Bears

2. 91 Skins

3. 89 49ers

4. 04 Pats

5. 94 49ers

6. 96 Pack

7. 92 Cowboys

8. 93 Cowboys

9. 86 Giants

10. 00 Ravens

11. 98 Broncos

12. 03 Pats

13. 97 Broncos

14. 95 Cowboys

15. 90 Giants

16. 02 Bucs

17. 88 49ers

18. 87 Skins

19. 01 Pats

20. 99 Rams

Right now I'm contemplating two things: Moving the Skins to #2 and moving the Bucs up a spot or two....Thoughts on this?

Yes. I'd say if you polled 99 other people, only one list out of 100 would have the 90 Giants more than five spots ahead of the 99 Rams. About 90 of the 99 would have the 99 Rams ahead, with about half of those having them significantly ahead.

Hence the reason that I wrote that I feel like they are one of the most overrated teams of all time. Nevertheless, I actually was considering dropping the 90 Giants some, so I'll look into it.

 

[thesurfshop19]

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.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but the 1999 Jaguars had only 3 wins by less than 7 points -- they won by 2 over the Panthers and by 3 over the Ravens and Broncos.Meanwhile, the 2001 Rams won 4 games by less than 7 points.

I don't think that puts them ahead of the Rams, but I think they're overlooked.

Out of the 1997 Packers, 1998 Vikings, 1999 Jaguars, 2000 Titans, and 2001 Rams, how would you rank them?

 

[thesurfshop19]

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.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but the 1999 Jaguars had only 3 wins by less than 7 points -- they won by 2 over the Panthers and by 3 over the Ravens and Broncos.Meanwhile, the 2001 Rams won 4 games by less than 7 points.

I don't think that puts them ahead of the Rams, but I think they're overlooked.

Out of the 1997 Packers, 1998 Vikings, 1999 Jaguars, 2000 Titans, and 2001 Rams, how would you rank them?

 

[jwvdcw]

  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.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but the 1999 Jaguars had only 3 wins by less than 7 points -- they won by 2 over the Panthers and by 3 over the Ravens and Broncos.Meanwhile, the 2001 Rams won 4 games by less than 7 points.

I don't think that puts them ahead of the Rams, but I think they're overlooked.

Out of the 1997 Packers, 1998 Vikings, 1999 Jaguars, 2000 Titans, and 2001 Rams, how would you rank them?

Thats pretty tough...off the top of my head(without studying any stats), I'd say:

1. 98 Vikings

2. 97 Pack

3. 01 Rams

4. 00 Titans

5. 99 Jags

Its tough to put any of these 5 in last place because they were all so good. You could even add in the 90 Bills, 86 Bears, and a few others and it'd be even harder.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Out of the 1997 Packers, 1998 Vikings, 1999 Jaguars, 2000 Titans, and 2001 Rams, how would you rank them?

1. 97 Packers2. 01 Rams

3. 00 Titans

4. 98 Vikings

5. 99 Jaguars

 

[houndirish]

Well thought out post. I tend to agree with you assessment of the Skins 92 Title Team being grossly underrated.I don't think you're giving enough props to the Cowboy teams. You've grossly overrated your Ravens. I put them with the Bucs and 2001 Patriots as the 3 worst SuperBowl title teams. The Bucs and Ravens were defensive mosters but had pedestrian offenses. The Patriots had mediocre statistical rankings but took advantage of an overconfident Rams team and grossly outcoached them in the big game.The 86 Giants and 99 Rams deserve better rankings. That Giant team was dominating on both sides of the ball. They physically beat you up. The Rams offense got all the glory but Lovie's D and the Special Teams were excellent too.

 

[phrozen]

I'm a little late to the party in regards to the thread but excellent post jwvdcw It is posts like this that make jwvdcw one of my favorite posters on this board.His knowledge of football, tecmo bowl and onslaught are great additions to the board.

 

[Ghost Rider]

The 86 Giants and 99 Rams deserve better rankings. That Giant team was dominating on both sides of the ball. They physically beat you up. The Rams offense got all the glory but Lovie's D and the Special Teams were excellent too.

Lovie Smith was not part of the 99 Rams team. He joined them in 2001.

 

[jwvdcw]

Well thought out post.

I tend to agree with you assessment of the Skins 92 Title Team being grossly underrated.

I don't think you're giving enough props to the Cowboy teams.

You've grossly overrated your Ravens. I put them with the Bucs and 2001 Patriots as the 3 worst SuperBowl title teams. The Bucs and Ravens were defensive mosters but had pedestrian offenses. The Patriots had mediocre statistical rankings but took advantage of an overconfident Rams team and grossly outcoached them in the big game.

The 86 Giants and 99 Rams deserve better rankings. That Giant team was dominating on both sides of the ball. They physically beat you up. The Rams offense got all the glory but Lovie's D and the Special Teams were excellent too.

Thanks for your comments. A few questions:1. Doesn't the fact that the Ravens outscored their opponents by over 3-1 with Dilfer change your thoughts on them a bit? With very few other teams even having a 2-1 advantage and no other team coming close to 3-1, this really impressed me and caused me to move them up. I just find it interesting that you pick the team that outscored opponents by the biggest ratio(once they went with Dilfer) as one of the worst teams. I realize their offense wasn't good, but when their D gives up one TD in the playoffs, and their D/ST scores 4 TDs in the playoffs, is offense even really necessary?

2. Please tell me more about the 86 Giants. As I said in my write up, I really don't know too much....so I will move them up- you just have to convince me.

3. It does "seem" like the Cowboys should be higher. After all they were a dominant team, right? I thought so too. But when you look at the stats, they just aren't that dominant in any one year. I had them like 6 spots higher when my list first came out just because I assumed they belonged high. But after listening to more and more arguments and reviewing the stats more and more, I can't justify their high ranking.

 

[wharf rat]

2. Please tell me more about the 86 Giants. As I said in my write up, I really don't know too much....so I will move them up- you just have to convince me.

http://www.supernfl.com/SuperBowl/sb21.html

 

[Bankerguy]

Interesting list. However I can't believe that the 92 or 93 Cowboys are not in the Top 5. I know you hate the Cowboys, but come on.

 

[Ghost Rider]

I am not sure if this means anything, but last night on ESPN, they were comparing this year's Colts team to some of the all-time great SB champs. I think the 85 Bears, 91 Redskins and 98 Broncos were the only teams from the last twenty years that were talked about (unless I am forgetting something). Again, take that for what it is worth.

 

[dgreen]

I am not sure if this means anything, but last night on ESPN, they were comparing this year's Colts team to some of the all-time great SB champs. I think the 85 Bears, 91 Redskins and 98 Broncos were the only teams from the last twenty years that were talked about (unless I am forgetting something). Again, take that for what it is worth.

Because those teams started off 11-0.

 

[Sabertooth]

Great thread. I like the fact that the Packers are the only team since the 72 Dolphins to be #1 in offense and #1 in defense. Can't argue much.