Assani Fisher
Footballguy
yeah....disagree with me on something so we can debate
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
Chaka
Footballguy
Don't feel like disagreeing but I might be up for an Onslaught.
A
awesomeness
Guest
I dont know how the 2005 steelers aren't ranked last in this. Unless rankings somehow get a marginal increase for being lucky..
Last edited:
IMO 98 Broncos would have whipped 96 Packers and 2004 Patriots.
There's no way they're the worst team on the list. I think they're ranked pretty accurately...This is what I would have for the bottom rankings though...19. 2006 Colts20. 1988 49'ers21. 2001 Patriots22. 1987 Redskins
cantrell
Footballguy
The 99 Rams should be at the bottom for playing all those cream puffs that they played.
2 games against a Jamal Anderson-less Falcons.
2 games against the Billy Joe Hobert Saints.
2 games against the Panthers (were scrappy that year, I'll give them that).
2 games against the the 49ers without Young or Hearst.
Also off the top of my head they played the Bengals and expansion Browns. Also were lucky to have a bad call go thier way in the NFCC against Tampa Bay. Plus gave up a 16 point lead in the Super Bowl, which they were also lucky to hold on to win.
2 games against a Jamal Anderson-less Falcons.
2 games against the Billy Joe Hobert Saints.
2 games against the Panthers (were scrappy that year, I'll give them that).
2 games against the the 49ers without Young or Hearst.
Also off the top of my head they played the Bengals and expansion Browns. Also were lucky to have a bad call go thier way in the NFCC against Tampa Bay. Plus gave up a 16 point lead in the Super Bowl, which they were also lucky to hold on to win.
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
[scooter]
Footballguy
While we're piling on the '99 Rams, let's just have a quick lil' recap of their season:Week 1: Baltimore (8-8) -- 27-10 win over a solid team 1 year away from a championship
Week 3: Atlanta (5-11) -- no Jamal Anderson, a banged up Chris Chandler, and a 35-7 Rams win
Week 4: Cincinnati (4-12) -- Akili Smith, 'nuff said (38-10 win)
Week 5: San Francisco (4-12) -- Steve Young had just been injured and their season was over (40-22 win)
Week 6: Atlanta (5-11) -- wow, twice in 4 weeks! 41-13
Week 7: Cleveland (2-14) -- expansion team. 34-3 win.
Week 8: Tennessee (13-3) -- Superbowl preview, where the Titans handed the Rams their first loss (21-24)
Week 9: Detroit (8-8) -- first year without Barry Sanders, and they were surprisingly scrappy with Germaine Crowell and Johnnie Morton. The Rams stumble, 27-31.
Week 10: Carolina (8-8) -- another scrappy team, with a solid QB (Steve Beuerlein), 2 stud WRs (Patrick Jeffers, Muhsin Muhammad), a finally-healthy Biakabutuka, and Wesley Walls. 35-10 Rams win.
Week 11: San Francisco (4-12) -- 43-7 Rams win.
Week 12: New Orleans (3-13) -- Mike Ditka plus TWO quarterbacks named "Billy Joe"!! 43-12 Rams win.
Week 13: Carolina (8-8) -- 34-21 Rams win.
Week 14: New Orleans (3-13) -- who did the NFL schedule this year??? 34-13 Rams win.
Week 15: New York Giants (7-9) -- they were having a decent year until the 3-game skid to close the season. Rams win 31-10.
Week 16: Chicago (6-10) -- The Cade McNown Experiment. 34-12 Rams win.
Week 17: Philadelphia (5-11) -- eyes on the playoffs and they lose 31-38.
Wow, I had no idea. Only one opponent with a winning record, and they lose the game. A couple decent wins over the Ravens and Carolina but nothing else to write home about.
Kind of a weird quirk that the Rams got to face all 5 of the 1999 Rookie Starting Quarterbacks (Couch, McNabb, Smith, McNown, plus Shaun King in the playoffs).
1999 Rams = fraud
Then again, the 2001 Rams were quite underrated, with legit wins over the Eagles (11-5), 49ers (12-4), Patriots (11-5), Dolphins (11-5), Jets (10-6), and several 7-9 teams.
A
awesomeness
Guest
The 2005 Steelers were lucky to make the playoffs, lucky to beat the bengals, lucky to beat the colts, and lucky that the refs had man crushes on them in the superbowl or they would have lost that too.
Last edited:
Bermuda_Chub
Footballguy
Great post. Well done. Can't say I disagree on much. 
That post reeks of bias.They were not lucky to make the playoffs, they used to skill to destroy their last 4 opponents and walked into the playoffs a game up on the next closest team.How were they lucky to beat the Bengals? A 34-17 win is not what I would call lucky.How were they lucky to beat the Colts? All I saw was the Steelers completely outclass Indy on both sides of the ball.You're insane if you think a couple arguable calls were the only things that let them beat Seattle. And aren't we past this now? I figured at this point we'd be able to rationally look at the calls and see that the majority of them weren't that bad, which is the truth. I have to say that I visit a lot of NFL forums, and footballguys.com in particular seems to stand out in still having so many people who diss the Steelers in their SuperBowl win.
Assani Fisher
Footballguy
1. I've moved the 1991 Redskins to #1: http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...howtopic=369593
My new list:
1. 1991 Redskins
2. 1985 Bears
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
2. If the Pats would've won they'd be #1. Since I am only including champions, they automatically don't make the list, but if I included non-champions they'd definitely be top 3 and maybe #1 still.
3. I really have no clue where I'm gonna put these Giants. I'd be interested in hearing some opinions before I make my decision.
My new list:
1. 1991 Redskins
2. 1985 Bears
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
2. If the Pats would've won they'd be #1. Since I am only including champions, they automatically don't make the list, but if I included non-champions they'd definitely be top 3 and maybe #1 still.
3. I really have no clue where I'm gonna put these Giants. I'd be interested in hearing some opinions before I make my decision.
David Yudkin
Footballguy
I suspect the problem will be that their regular season was one of the weakest across the board out of any team on the least. But they won 4 games in the playoffs, 3 in hostile territory, beat the #1 and #2 seeds in their conference and then went on to beat the only 18-0 team in history.I personally have a hard time getting too excited over a team with 6 losses. I also wonder in an overall analysis of teams if the Pats 2007 would rank higher than the 2007 Giants. Many people still have the 01 Rams season ranked better/higher than the 01 Pats, so IMO it's not out of consideration.
Assani Fisher
Footballguy
Imo the 07 Pats are way way higher than the 07 Giants and its not even remotely close. Does anyone out there really think it wasn't an upset that the Giants won?
dgreen
Footballguy
Where's the 1982 Redskins? They were better than the 1987 team.
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
I would put the Giants near the bottom of that list. Yes, they had an unbelievable postseason run, but their 10-6 regulars season record is woefully unimpressive when comparing them to past Super Bowl winners. In fact, did any of those SB winners on that list lose 6 games?
Re-read the name of this thread.
Last edited by a moderator:
dgreen
Footballguy
Hmm, didn't see that.Re-read the name of this thread.
Anyway, so he stopped at 22 because he's ranking the top 20?1982 Skins > 1987 Skins. He has the '87 team at 20, so the '82 team should be ranked here.
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
OF THE PAST 20 YEARS. When the original list was done, the '87 team was one of the Super Bowl champs of the past 20 years. The '82 team was not.Hmm, didn't see that.Re-read the name of this thread.
David Yudkin
Footballguy
If you looked closely at the first post, you will notice it was started in 2005. At the time, he DID rank the last 20.Hmm, didn't see that.Re-read the name of this thread.
dgreen
Footballguy
OF THE PAST 20 YEARS. When the original list was done, the '87 team was one of the Super Bowl champs of the past 20 years. The '82 team was not.Hmm, didn't see that.Re-read the name of this thread.
redman
Footballguy
If it's the last 20 Super Bowls, then the 2007 Giants by necessity replaced the 1987 Redskins on this list.
I actually think these two teams had a lot in common - neither were great teams but they did what they had to do to win and had strong playoff runs. That 1987 Redskins team was easily the worst Super Bowl team out of the five that they have fielded - it's really not close.
I think you should slide this Giants team into the 18-20 range.
I actually think these two teams had a lot in common - neither were great teams but they did what they had to do to win and had strong playoff runs. That 1987 Redskins team was easily the worst Super Bowl team out of the five that they have fielded - it's really not close.
I think you should slide this Giants team into the 18-20 range.
Koya
Footballguy
Giants would have to be toward the bottom of the list, but when you have THAT postseason run, culminating in beating a team that many considered at the time to be one of if not the greatest EVER, I cant see plopping them too far down the list.Now, 18-1 does deserve to be considered a "better team" than the Giants, but people must not forget that the Giants and Pats essentially played not one, but TWO very very close games that were essentially evenly matched. The first game saw the Giants give up a big late lead, and the second game saw the Giants really play better than the Pats, only to need a last min. comeback of their own. Going into the SB I gave the giants a 5-10% chance of winning. Seeing the Giants manhandle the Pats, I would now have to say that the Giants win a third of the time, if not closer to 40% - how many of the teams on this list would be as competitive against the Pats as the Giants even?Also, Giants homer aside, I think the '86 Giants deserve to be up a bit more. Im not sold on the earlier Pats teams being worthy of slots that high compared to the teams of the 80's and 90's who had to face much tougher elite competition, especially come playoff time.
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
Good trivia question on the '86 Giants: Name either of their starting wide receivers.
Buffaloes
Footballguy
Nice list. I think the '98 Broncos are a top 3 team on this list along with the '85 Bears and '89 9ers. I remember basically knowing Denver was going to win every game they went into that year (the NYG game was a heart breaker). TD rushed for 2k while sitting out very large portion of games due to the game being over by halftime. They were just plain dominant all year and had they played on one of the coasts I think they would garner more attention as one of the truly dominant teams of the past 20 years.whoa...just realized this list is from '05. Still, nicely done.
Last edited by a moderator:
Buffaloes
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Raider Nation
Devil's Advocate
Off the top of my head (scout's honor), I'd say Phil McConkey and Lionel Manuel.'Chase Stuart said:
Manster
Footballguy
just for giggles i checked out some SB winner rankings.....Im sure you'll find flaws in these rankings, but all 3 rank the '92 Cowboys higher than the '91 Redskins.
These are all-time SB rankings, not last 20
Americas Game
'91 skins 14th
'92 boys 5th
Bleacher Report
'91 skins 15th
'92 boys 5th
ESPN Ultimate Super Rankings
'91 skins 10th
'92 boys 4th
The '92 Boys had a young explosive defense. Charles Haley, Ken Norton, Darren Woodson.......A solid unit with no one making the pro-bowl. Underrated, IMO. They totally blew up the Bills for 9 T.O.s in the SB.
The offense speaks for itself. Aikman, Emmitt, Irvin, Harper, Novacek, and a devastating O-line.
I think the biggest knock on this team is strength of schedule. But if you think about it, this team could compete and beat most any other team in history. By the time they beat the 9ers in Candlestick, the SB was already a foregone conclusion. I dont think anyone would have beat them that day.
Obviously I'm biased. But ranking the '92 Boys at 10 on your list of 20 is off.
These are all-time SB rankings, not last 20
Americas Game
'91 skins 14th
'92 boys 5th
Bleacher Report
'91 skins 15th
'92 boys 5th
ESPN Ultimate Super Rankings
'91 skins 10th
'92 boys 4th
The '92 Boys had a young explosive defense. Charles Haley, Ken Norton, Darren Woodson.......A solid unit with no one making the pro-bowl. Underrated, IMO. They totally blew up the Bills for 9 T.O.s in the SB.
The offense speaks for itself. Aikman, Emmitt, Irvin, Harper, Novacek, and a devastating O-line.
I think the biggest knock on this team is strength of schedule. But if you think about it, this team could compete and beat most any other team in history. By the time they beat the 9ers in Candlestick, the SB was already a foregone conclusion. I dont think anyone would have beat them that day.
Obviously I'm biased. But ranking the '92 Boys at 10 on your list of 20 is off.
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
McConkey was the 3rd receiver, and Manuel was the 4th receiver.
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
The offense speaks for itself? Dallas scored 43 offensive TDs and averaged 25.6 PPG. Washington scored 51 offensive TDs and averaged 30.3 PPG.
Manster
Footballguy
'92 Cowboys were the start of a team that won 3 SB's in 4 years. What I meant by "speaks for itself" is, it was stacked. When they were clicking, as they were in the '92 playoffs, they were pretty much unbeatable. Statistically, what the '91 skins did was impressive, but I'm notoriously not one to rely soley on stats. Theres too many uncontrolled factors.I'll ask the question: If the '91 skins and '92 boys squared off who'd win? Well they played the same team in the SB, in the Bills. The boys beat em 52-17, and the skins won 37-24. And I still maintain that the boys beating the 9ers in candlestick is one of the toughest accomplishments in playoff history.Funny thing is, I found on ESPN they did their "super league" in '07 and the 91 skins beat the '92 cowboys in their simulation. musta been skins fans runnin that thing! haha!
Sweet Love
IBL Representative
Really? I have Washington at 10 rushing TDs and 15 passing TDs for a total of 25 offensive TDs for the year in 1992. Dallas had 23 passing, and 20 rushing for a total of 43 (which is what you have)...did you mean to compare them to a different team?
dgreen
Footballguy
1991 Skins
Kuz
Footballguy
I think Stacy Robinson was one but not really sure. Have no idea who the other one was. Only reason I sort of remember is Stacy Robinson just died a few weeks ago & they had a nice article in our paper
Assani Fisher
Footballguy
see post #21 in this thread
Assani Fisher
Footballguy
You say that you're not one to rely upon stats since theres too many uncontrolled factors. You then go on to list one common opponent(the Buffalo Bills) and use that as proof that the Cowboys are better???Just for the record, the Skins were up 37-10 late in the 4th quarter before letting the Bills score 2 meaningless TDs. The Cowboys were "only" up 31-17 in the 4th quarter, but they scored 3 meaningless late TDs. You add the qualifier "when they were clicking", but thats the thing- we need to factor in both the games in which they were clicking and the games in which they weren't. When you look at all of the games both teams played, the 1991 Skins were clearly better. The 1992 Cowboys lost 31-7 to the Eagles and they lost to a 6-10 Rams team...those are horrible losses that imo automatically disqualify them from being at the top of the list. GOAT teams don't get blown out nor do they lose to 6-10 teams.Theres a very valid argument that the Cowboys weren't even the best team from 1992. The 1992 49ers were also very good and their playoff game was super close(416 vs 415 total yards for both teams....really the only reason the Cowboys won that game is that there were 3 fumbles and all 3 were recovered by the Cowboys. There is a ton of luck in fumble recoveries). In 1991, there was no doubt who the best team was.
Last edited by a moderator:
Manster
Footballguy
Apparently, the better team didnt win the NFC championship in '92. I guess the Cowboys, lucked into it. haha! Look, this is all opinion that means nothing anyway. You can crunch all the stats you want, and its still comparing apples to oranges at the end of the day. I guess its fun to debate these kinds of things when not much else is goin on.I'm gonna convince you of nothing, and you're not going to convince me that the '91 skins are better than the '92 cowboys. If they played 6 times, they'd prolly split. But I'd take the Cowboys in that matchup every time.
Assani Fisher
Footballguy
"I'm gonna convince you of nothing, and you're not going to convince me that the '91 skins are better than the '92 cowboys. "Why do you say this? As rational people, we should be extremely willing to look at counter-evidence and change our opinions as a result. In fact, you'll notice that I changed my list from the one I posted in the OP multiple times during the course of this thread. If you can provide me with a valid argument for why the Cowboys were better, I'll surely listen. However, when I objectively look at the facts I see that:1. The 1991 Redskins played a tougher schedule2. The 1991 Redskins had a better W/L record3. The 1991 Redskins scored more points4. The 1991 Redskins allowed less points5. The 1991 Redskins crushed everyone in the playoffs, whereas the Cowboys/49ers were essentially evenly matched and the game ended up being decided by one team recovering 3/3 fumbles6. 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.I am indeed a Redskins fan, but I'm trying my very hardest to put bias aside when I make lists like this one. If theres a valid argument for the 1992 Cowboys being better, I'd love to hear it and perhaps change my rankings. What exactly do you feel that the 1992 Cowboys did better than the 1991 Redskins? I've just re-read all of your posts, and I don't see any real reasons for you believing this. To me, you come across as a Cowboys fan who wants to believe his team is better simply because thats the team you happen to root for.
Last edited by a moderator:
Manster
Footballguy
I get it. The '91 skins had a better year, statistically. In '91 and '92 the Boys and Skins split games. Which is not a surprise, as division teams know eachother well, and you can typically throw out stats, records, etc. when they meet.So if you go by stats alone, then yes, the skins should outrank the boys. And i guess thats what this list is all about. Thats fine. Its not debatable. I still think if they met in a playoff setting the '92 Cowboys are the favorite. And I think you trivialize the win over the 9ers way too much.'Assani Fisher said:
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
The '91 Redskins point differential was nearly 100 points higher than the '92 Cowboys was, and the '91 Bills were better than the '92 Bills, so it really isn't close; the '91 Redskins were better, simply put.
Similar threads
