I have discussed this in the thread(just look 2 or 3 posts up for one example or look at my lengthy comparison between the Skins and Cowboys teams). And you are the second person to say that I am biased against them, and again I'll point out that I have on many times argued for Emmitt Smith as a better RB than Barry Sanders and have many times argued for other Cowboys(I give other examples in an earlier post). I can honestly say that I'm not being biased here.As I said, I initially put the Cowboys much higher. Thats because, like everyone else, I assumed that of course the Cowboys needed to be really high. However, as I looked at the numbers more and more, I realized that they just don't stack up with the teams above them. You say top 5? Now, I could MAYBE see getting them up to #8, but I simply don't see how they could crack the top 7. Take my #7 team, the 1998 Broncos, and do a statistical comparison between them and the 1992 Cowboys....include any and all relevant stats, and I'm 99% sure that you'll come to the conclusion that the 1998 Broncos were the better team.
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)
- Thread starter jwvdcw
- Start date
Just to add....I really think that people are underestimating the 2000 Ravens offense. Earlier on in this thread, someone claimed that the 2002 Bucs had a much better offense. Then I brought out the stats to show this simply wasn't true at all.
Well, here you call the Ravens a "pedestrian offense" and you say the 1986 Giants were "dominant on both sides of the ball."
The 1986 Giants had 5754 total yards(9th in the league)
The 2000 Ravens had 5301 total yards(16th in the league)
The 1986 Giants scored 371 total points(8th in the league)
The 2000 Ravens scored 333 points(14th in the league)
Please note that with Tony Banks as quarterback, the Ravnes went through a hellish stretch of 5 games without a single touchdown. I don't feel like working out all of the stats, but I'm fairly certain that the Ravens with Dilfer were at least as good statistically, if not better, than the 1986 Giants.
However, even ignoring that, the 1986 Giants outproduced the 2000 Ravens by 28 yards per game and 2.3 points per game....is that really the difference between "pedestrian" and "dominant"?
simmonjm
Footballguy
My argument is that stats are flawed. Case in point during the 90's the Cowboys played a tougher schedule and everyone knew that the 49ers Cowboys in the championship was the real superbowl. Who did the Ravens ever play that could present a challenge like the 49ers (1990's) provided? Granted it was only 1 maybe 2 games a season but it could really influence the stats. I definetly dont have time but I would like to see strength of schedule for stats for all the superbowl teams you listed. I know you like to go by stats iirc you even had a statistic argument for the Redskins offense being one of the best in the NFL this year..
ShadowMaster
Footballguy
No undefeated Dolphins and not 1 Steeler team makes this list a waste of time......Glad I scanned them all after the first 2.:yawn - get real
Last edited by a moderator:
I think we can all agree that the top 3 teams are just in another tier, so I'll laeve them out of this.All of this is going on memory....
#4-the 2004 Pats beat the 15-1 Steelers on the road in the NFC Championship
#5-the 94 49ers defeated those same Cowboys
#6-the 96 Packers defeated the 49ers, and the Cowboys were still dominant this year(but they lost early in the playoffs-not the Packers fault they couldn't make it)
#7-the 1998 Broncos defeated a very good Jets team that was 11-1 with Testaverde and a 14-2 Falcons team
#8-the 1986 Giants beat a 14-2 Redskins team by a score of 17-0 in the playoffs
#9-the 2000 Ravens went on the road and their D/ST by themselves outscored the 13-3 Titans, then they went on the road again and held one of the best offenses of the past few years to 3 points
So every team had to play some team 13-3 or better with the exception of the 1994 49ers, but can you really say that the 92 Cowboys are better than the 94 49ers just because the 94 Cowboys didn't have a 13-3 record when they lost to them?
Lets not forget that in the Super Bowl, the Cowboys got to play an 11-5 Bills team that had only outscored its opponents by 59 points in the regular season and was only in the Super Bowl due to a record setting comeback/collapse.
Yes, I understand that the Cowboys had to deal with a tough 49ers team....but that one(or two some years) game does not skew all of the stats and make them meaningless. In fact, the Cowboys didn't even lose to the 49ers that year! They lost to the Eagles, Rams, and Redskins. The only team on the list above them that had more losses was the Ravens, but they were 11-1 once Dilfer took over, so I think its very reasonable to say that they wouldn't have had 4 losses if Dilfer played the whole way.
thesurfshop19
Footballguy
I just don't see how someone can post that (Shadow's post) without editing or deleting at some point later. Unreal.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
Ah, okay. I was doing stuff when it was on and had a feeling I had missed something relevant. Please ignore my earlier post now.
Posting in threads without reading the initial thread or the TITLE of the thread is dumb.
Last edited by a moderator:
thesurfshop19
Footballguy
Very good, final list. Of course, like everyone, I don't agree with everything (I'd probably move the 1999 Rams up at least a few spots, etc.) but it's clear that you did a lot of research and didn't just look at records or make assumptions about who the best teams were. Great work! 
Assani Fisher
Footballguy
bump to rank the 2005 Steelers:
11-5, #9 Points Scored, #3 Points Allowed, +131 points
This is one of the hardest rankings out there. On one hand, they were dominant against the AFC in the playoffs. They were clearly the best AFC team at the end of the season- imho there is absolutely no debate about that. Carson Palmer playing wouldn't have changed that nor would have the Pats if they had met. Furthermore, a few of their losses were without Big Ben. However, I hold that against them for not having a better backup, so I don't think of that as an excuse. And then the bad: I don't think they were the best team in the league. I think Seattle was. Overall, their stats are not impressive when stacked up against other teams that I've ranked. And since its very disputed that they were the best team last year, I can't rank them too highly. I think they definitely don't belong in the top 11 of this list. After that, it gets a little tough. After weighing my options, I'm going to put them at #16(behing the 2002 Bucs and just ahead of the 1990 Giants). Of course, as I have done with every ranking here, I am willing to listen to arguments and modify the list if someone convinces me.
1. 1985 Bears
2. 1991 Redskins
3. 1989 49ers
4. 2004 Patriots
5. 1994 49ers
6. 1996 Packers
7. 1998 Broncos
8. 1986 Giants
9. 2000 Ravens
10. 1992 Cowboys
11. 1993 Cowboys
12. 2003 Pats
13. 1997 Broncos
14. 1995 Cowboys
15.2002 Bucs
16. 2005 Steelers
17. 1990 Giants
18. 2001 Pats
19. 1999 Rams
20. 1987 Redskins
21. 1988 49ers
11-5, #9 Points Scored, #3 Points Allowed, +131 points
This is one of the hardest rankings out there. On one hand, they were dominant against the AFC in the playoffs. They were clearly the best AFC team at the end of the season- imho there is absolutely no debate about that. Carson Palmer playing wouldn't have changed that nor would have the Pats if they had met. Furthermore, a few of their losses were without Big Ben. However, I hold that against them for not having a better backup, so I don't think of that as an excuse. And then the bad: I don't think they were the best team in the league. I think Seattle was. Overall, their stats are not impressive when stacked up against other teams that I've ranked. And since its very disputed that they were the best team last year, I can't rank them too highly. I think they definitely don't belong in the top 11 of this list. After that, it gets a little tough. After weighing my options, I'm going to put them at #16(behing the 2002 Bucs and just ahead of the 1990 Giants). Of course, as I have done with every ranking here, I am willing to listen to arguments and modify the list if someone convinces me.
1. 1985 Bears
2. 1991 Redskins
3. 1989 49ers
4. 2004 Patriots
5. 1994 49ers
6. 1996 Packers
7. 1998 Broncos
8. 1986 Giants
9. 2000 Ravens
10. 1992 Cowboys
11. 1993 Cowboys
12. 2003 Pats
13. 1997 Broncos
14. 1995 Cowboys
15.2002 Bucs
16. 2005 Steelers
17. 1990 Giants
18. 2001 Pats
19. 1999 Rams
20. 1987 Redskins
21. 1988 49ers
Sonny Lubick Blowup Doll
Footballguy
WHAT THE HELL?You mean camping trip.
I missed this the first time around. Nice job.
The Reverend
Footballguy
I haven't checked the Steeler's offseason thread lately to see if anyone followed up on the ranking of the Steelers in the top 20...
I think this is good work, but when you are ranking the best Super Bowl teams, it seems to me that regular season record, PF, and PA (or overall O or D) is only part of the story. The playoff run, and the calibre of the teams you beat (and by what margin) to get to the SB is a weighy factor.
Incidentally, having the 1995 Cowboys at 14 implies that the 1995 SB Steelers were better than the 2005 SB Steelers. I'm in the air on that one.
Regardless, having the 2005 SB Steelers at 16 seems pretty fair, although their unprecedented wildcard, on-the-road, dominating 3-game playoff run couldbump them up a few spots.
I think this is good work, but when you are ranking the best Super Bowl teams, it seems to me that regular season record, PF, and PA (or overall O or D) is only part of the story. The playoff run, and the calibre of the teams you beat (and by what margin) to get to the SB is a weighy factor.
Incidentally, having the 1995 Cowboys at 14 implies that the 1995 SB Steelers were better than the 2005 SB Steelers. I'm in the air on that one.
Regardless, having the 2005 SB Steelers at 16 seems pretty fair, although their unprecedented wildcard, on-the-road, dominating 3-game playoff run couldbump them up a few spots.
DoctorDetroit
Chocolate Thunder
Alias check.
Buckychudd
Footballguy
He's admitted it several times.
Assani Fisher
Footballguy
Yes, I totally do look at postseason run and it is one of the biggest factors in my rankings. And as I said, it was tough with the Steelers because while they had a great run through the AFC, their super bowl is unfairly tainted- I say unfairly because while everyone is focuing on how much the bad reffing hurt Seattle, it also hurts the Steelers because people aren't 100% sure that they were the best team.I'm not sure I'm following your logic on why me ranking the 1995 Cowboys ahead of the 2005 Steelers means that I think the 1995 Steelers were better than the 2005 Steelers at all. How do you get that?
I could see moving them up a spot or two....my initial top 20 rankings have changed a ton since my first post(I've edited it many times). Feel free to try to convince me. I'm definitely not too arrogant to make changes.
Assani Fisher
Footballguy
Its not really an alias as much as a name change seeing as how I havn't used jw since I started using this one.He's admitted it several times.
The Reverend
Footballguy
I said that it implies that the 1995 Steelers were better than the 2005 Steelers, not that I thought you thought that they were. It's just not something I would expect you would have explicity thought about while you were ranking the SB winners (or maybe you did.) It's is a poor/weak correlation, but interesting to me as a Steeler's fan. The 1995 team was pretty good. For the first time in years the Steelers had an explosive offense to go with a stifling blitz-happy defense with Greg Lloyd, Levon Kirkland, Kevin Greene, (and a gimpy Woodson). At the time, O'Donnell was possibly one of the top 3 Steeler QBs ever (after Bradshaw and Layne). The 2005 team had a fairly conservative offense with a great blitz-happy defense. Roethlisberger is certainly better than O'Donnell at the 2 yr stage of their careers, and the case can be made that he is better now than O'Donnell ever was for the Steelers. One thing that the 2005 team had this year that the 1995 Steelers didn't have was excellent coaching. Earhart was a great coach and Cowher was relatively young and inexperienced as a coach, but the game planning wasn't there. Wisenhunt and an older Cowher and LeBeau actually outcoached most of the teams they competed against, something that was more rare than not in the Cowher era. Wisenhunt was just uncanny, bordering on phenom status in his abilty to set up follow on offensive series via play calling. The most important move that the Steeler's made this year was retaining him.Player-wise, the 1995 Steelers were probably a little better, but the 2005 Steelers were better coached. Head-to-head, I'd give the 2005 Steelers the edge in an actual game due to coaching.
But since Dallas beat the 1995 Steelers, I'd have to say the 2005 version can't be any higher than that, but possibly tied.
Sorry for the semi-hijack. I'm not sure I can convince you that the 2005 Steelers need to move up your list. It just got me to thinking, and that's a dangerous thing.
Assani Fisher
Footballguy
Just saw this question now....a bit busy right now(just got an Xbox 360), but I'll definitely respond sometime soon.
Captain Spaulding
Footballguy
Steeler fan here. I think the 16 ranking of the 2005 Steelers is very fair. I actually thought they would get ranked in the bottom 5 somewhere. I do think that the 1995 Cowboys (underacheived during reg. season, Switzer was a moron and O'donnel gave them the Superbowl) though should be lower than the 2005 Steelers. And for the record, the 1995 Steelers were a better team on the field than the 2005 Steelers, but agree with past posts that Steelers coaching in the playoffs and Superbowl combined with Rothlisberger's great playoff run (horrible in SB) was the difference maker.
DoctorDetroit
Chocolate Thunder
You lied to us. You rarely see page three stuff bumped in the Shark Pool unless there is an
attatched.
Last edited by a moderator:
DoctorDetroit
Chocolate Thunder
Yes, I bet you are. Are you a Redskins fan by chance? Interesting....
Assani Fisher
Footballguy
Assuming the Seahawks won the SB...2005 Seahawks
16-3, #1 points scored, #7 points allowed, +181 points
They lost their first game of the season on the road against a tough Jacksonville team. They also lost an OT squeaker against Washington in week 4. Other than that, they were perfect(I refuse to count week 17 loses as real loses if one team clearly wasn't trying). Their offense was extremely well balanced, and wouldn't have trouble scoring against any team. Their defense was rather average compared to others on this list. Obviously, people are going to compare where I would rank the Seahawks(had they won) against where I did rank the Steelers. I don't want to start controversy, but I think I'd rank the Seahawks a bit higher simply because the stats dictate it and in my heart I truly do believe that they were the better team(I really don't feel like debating this anymore though, so please just lets agree to disagree). It would actually depend a bit on how we're assuming they had beat Pittsburgh in the SB: If they dominated them, I would put them at #10. If they win a closer game, I put them at #13.
Last edited by a moderator:
nygiants56
Footballguy
1986 Giants are WAY too low at #8, should be in the top 3 without a doubt!
they pummeled opposing teams that year. one of the best defenses to play in a SB.
what happened to the 1991 Washington Redskins with Mark Rypien?? that had to be one of the best SB winning teams ever, they were unstoppable.
they pummeled opposing teams that year. one of the best defenses to play in a SB.
what happened to the 1991 Washington Redskins with Mark Rypien?? that had to be one of the best SB winning teams ever, they were unstoppable.
Assani Fisher
Footballguy
What do you mean what happened to them? They're #2 on my list.As for the Giants, they only outscored their opponents by 137 points. You say they belong in the top 3? The top 3 outscored their opponents by 258, 261, and 189 points. I admit that they were a great team, but I don't think they quite stack up to the truly elite. JMHO.
Frenchy Fuqua
Footballguy
I have a hard time evaluating Seattle because of their lack of competition in 2005. Not including the Indy game (like the GB game) the Hawks were 2-2 during the regular season against teams that were over .500. Their two wins were both at home and by only 3 points. I still believe there are 4-5 AFC teams that would've matched/bettered the Seahawks regular season record and postseason run if given the same schedule.
Last edited by a moderator:
redman
Footballguy
In fairness, the criticism you have has more to do with the Giants' philosophy under Parcells than it does actual flaws in the team. Parcells Giants, particularly the 1990 version, was as conservative of a ball-controll offense as you'll find in the modern era. They simply beat up their opponents all game long and controlled the clock. If you're going to downgrade them for that, then you should also downgrade the teams that passed a lot and ran up the score for deceptively inflating their stats.
Assani Fisher
Footballguy
fair points. It was tough for me to judge teams that I was too young to remember. Perhaps they were like the Pats and I should've given those Bills teams more credit.In fairness, the criticism you have has more to do with the Giants' philosophy under Parcells than it does actual flaws in the team. Parcells Giants, particularly the 1990 version, was as conservative of a ball-controll offense as you'll find in the modern era. They simply beat up their opponents all game long and controlled the clock. If you're going to downgrade them for that, then you should also downgrade the teams that passed a lot and ran up the score for deceptively inflating their stats.
Assani Fisher
Footballguy
You need to be way more icy, Pots. Seriously. Give me some example or some solid arguments. Just telling me I screwed up is being a cold stove.You know whats crazy- despite me being a huge Skins homer, I never considered putting them above the Bears. Yet when I posted this on twoplustwo, I got people arguing that they should be #1. Here was the jist of the argument:
Should the 1991 Redskins actually be #1????
Assani Fisher
Footballguy
People on 2+2 also asked me to rank a few other teams on how they'd fare "if" they had won the SB:
1990 Buffalo Bills(assuming they had won the championship)
16-3, #1 points scored, #6 points allowed, +165 points
They lost a week 17 game, so they only had 2 real losses, but one was a humiliating 30-7 loss to Miami. A very balanced team that had no huge weaknesses. I guess maybe the fact that they were only 15th in rushing defense would be their biggest weakness if I had to pick one. Similar to my ranking of the 2005 Seahawks, I feel as if I'm going to get myself in trouble by ranking them higher than the team they lost to, but I think its deserved. Clearly their ceiling is #12 because I can't put them ahead of those Cowboys teams that destroyed the same Bills team the next few years. I think that the Pats and Broncos are slightly better as well. I'll go with #14 had they won the super bowl.
2001 Rams
17-2(had they won the SB), #1 in points scored, #7 in points allowed, +230 points.
Their two losses were somewhat close(3 and 7 points) but they weren't necessarily flukes. Surprisingly enough, both losses came at home. They "only" won the NFC Championship game by 5 points, so if we're assuming that they only squeak by a SB win(which is a lot more likely) then they were certainly not dominant to close the season. Of course, if you want to assume that they blow out NE, then that changes things, but like I said, thats a huge leap especially against a Bellicheck coached team. There numbers are solid all around....really, no weaknesses are apparent- top 10 in every meaningful stat. They beat the 12-4 49ers twice, as well as Philly twice(counting the playoffs), they beat the 11-5 Dolphins, the 11-5 Pats, the 10-6 Jets, as well as having a fairly tough schedule.
As I said though, both losses were "real" losses in which they were outplayed. Furthermore since the 2004 Pats team is my highest rated Pats team, and the lowest rated Pats team beat this team, then its hard to rank them above #4.
Its a tough ranking. I'd say this: If they squeak by the Pats in the SB: #8. If they blow out the Pats in the SB: #6.
It gets really tough to rank those teams at the top. Teams 3-8 are all so interchangable imo, and those Rams are clearly in that 2nd tier of teams.
1990 Buffalo Bills(assuming they had won the championship)
16-3, #1 points scored, #6 points allowed, +165 points
They lost a week 17 game, so they only had 2 real losses, but one was a humiliating 30-7 loss to Miami. A very balanced team that had no huge weaknesses. I guess maybe the fact that they were only 15th in rushing defense would be their biggest weakness if I had to pick one. Similar to my ranking of the 2005 Seahawks, I feel as if I'm going to get myself in trouble by ranking them higher than the team they lost to, but I think its deserved. Clearly their ceiling is #12 because I can't put them ahead of those Cowboys teams that destroyed the same Bills team the next few years. I think that the Pats and Broncos are slightly better as well. I'll go with #14 had they won the super bowl.
2001 Rams
17-2(had they won the SB), #1 in points scored, #7 in points allowed, +230 points.
Their two losses were somewhat close(3 and 7 points) but they weren't necessarily flukes. Surprisingly enough, both losses came at home. They "only" won the NFC Championship game by 5 points, so if we're assuming that they only squeak by a SB win(which is a lot more likely) then they were certainly not dominant to close the season. Of course, if you want to assume that they blow out NE, then that changes things, but like I said, thats a huge leap especially against a Bellicheck coached team. There numbers are solid all around....really, no weaknesses are apparent- top 10 in every meaningful stat. They beat the 12-4 49ers twice, as well as Philly twice(counting the playoffs), they beat the 11-5 Dolphins, the 11-5 Pats, the 10-6 Jets, as well as having a fairly tough schedule.
As I said though, both losses were "real" losses in which they were outplayed. Furthermore since the 2004 Pats team is my highest rated Pats team, and the lowest rated Pats team beat this team, then its hard to rank them above #4.
Its a tough ranking. I'd say this: If they squeak by the Pats in the SB: #8. If they blow out the Pats in the SB: #6.
It gets really tough to rank those teams at the top. Teams 3-8 are all so interchangable imo, and those Rams are clearly in that 2nd tier of teams.
Bump for the 2006 Colts.
Personally, (using Fishers' rankings), I would slide them in at #17 or #18 after either the 2005 Steelers or 1990 Giants. They were very physical in the playoffs and have Peyton Manning, but I have a hard time putting them too high because you do still need to factor in regular season, and their defense was absolutely TERRIBLE in the regular season. Worst rushing D, and 360 points allowed. But still, they have Peyton Manning and a high powered offense, and the defense really turned it around come playoff time, so that saves them from being ranked near the bottom couple.
Or.... perhaps they could be ranked a little higher, but IMO to rank the 2006 Colts higher you would also need to bump up the 2005 Steelers as well. Reason being because the 05 Steelers beat the 05 Colts in the post-season, who were actually a better team than the 2006 Colts in my opinion, so I think the 05 Steelers need to remain slightly ahead of the 06 Colts. But I think the Steelers are fine ranked where they are, so I can't really move them, and therefore can't have the Colts very high either.
Fisher, your thoughts since you made the list?
Personally, (using Fishers' rankings), I would slide them in at #17 or #18 after either the 2005 Steelers or 1990 Giants. They were very physical in the playoffs and have Peyton Manning, but I have a hard time putting them too high because you do still need to factor in regular season, and their defense was absolutely TERRIBLE in the regular season. Worst rushing D, and 360 points allowed. But still, they have Peyton Manning and a high powered offense, and the defense really turned it around come playoff time, so that saves them from being ranked near the bottom couple.
Or.... perhaps they could be ranked a little higher, but IMO to rank the 2006 Colts higher you would also need to bump up the 2005 Steelers as well. Reason being because the 05 Steelers beat the 05 Colts in the post-season, who were actually a better team than the 2006 Colts in my opinion, so I think the 05 Steelers need to remain slightly ahead of the 06 Colts. But I think the Steelers are fine ranked where they are, so I can't really move them, and therefore can't have the Colts very high either.
Fisher, your thoughts since you made the list?
Assani Fisher
Footballguy
2006 Indy Colts16-4, #3 points scored, #23 points allowed, +67 points
Their +67 points scored is the lowest of anyone on this list. Also their #23 points allowed is by far the lowest of any unit on this list(the closest is the 2002 Bucs offense being 18th in points scored). I dunno, maybe its just the parity in today's NFL, but their stats just aren't impressive at all. I do think that having Manning would allow them to compete in most games, but theres only so much one guy can do. Furthermore, I totally agree that I have to put them below the 2005 Steelers since imo the 2005 Colts that lost at home to those Steelers were better than this year's team. I think that it comes down to them, the 87 Skins, and the 88 49ers for worst 3 on this list. The 88 Redskins only losses were by 1, 4, 4, and 2 points. Because of that I'm putting them ahead of the 2006 Colts. Its kind of a tossup between the 2006 Colts and the 1988 49ers imo. Eh, I guess I'll put the Colts ahead just to avoid the hate from all the Colts fans.
Updated list:
1. 1985 Bears
2. 1991 Redskins
3. 1989 49ers
4. 2004 Patriots
5. 1994 49ers
6. 1996 Packers
7. 1998 Broncos
8. 1986 Giants
9. 2000 Ravens
10. 1992 Cowboys
11. 1993 Cowboys
12. 2003 Pats
13. 1997 Broncos
14. 1995 Cowboys
15.2002 Bucs
16. 2005 Steelers
17. 1990 Giants
18. 2001 Pats
19. 1999 Rams
20. 1987 Redskins
21. 2006 Colts
22. 1988 49ers
Last edited by a moderator:
djcolts
Footballguy
Clearly this season's Colts team is one of the bottom 5 Super Bowl winning teams of all time - and that doesn't bother me at all. However, I think they should get some credit for beating the 3 top scoring defense teams in the playoffs (never been done before), and for being a dome team that won in the first ever rain-soaked Super Bowl (dome team's record in the outdoors in the playoffs is awful).
Also, they had a very good record against teams with a winning record (including playoffs) - 8-1, and even with teams with non-losing records (in the regular season, Giants finished 8-8 but lost in the first round of the playoffs - so I'm still counting them), they were very solid 12-3.
Also, they had a very good record against teams with a winning record (including playoffs) - 8-1, and even with teams with non-losing records (in the regular season, Giants finished 8-8 but lost in the first round of the playoffs - so I'm still counting them), they were very solid 12-3.
Last edited by a moderator:
Assani Fisher
Footballguy
I'm moving the 1990 Giants up 1 spot and the 2005 Steelers down one spot....1. 1985 Bears
2. 1991 Redskins
3. 1989 49ers
4. 2004 Patriots
5. 1994 49ers
6. 1996 Packers
7. 1998 Broncos
8. 1986 Giants
9. 2000 Ravens
10. 1992 Cowboys
11. 1993 Cowboys
12. 2003 Pats
13. 1997 Broncos
14. 1995 Cowboys
15.2002 Bucs
16. 1990 Giants
17. 2005 Steelers
18. 2001 Pats
19. 1999 Rams
20. 1987 Redskins
21. 2006 Colts
22. 1988 49ers
DoubleG
Footballguy
I actually thought a Pats fan had bumped this thread to see if the 2007 Patriots had made the list yet.Similar threads
