SI's Top 10 Offenses (1 Viewer)

[SSOG]

I think points scored to compare offenses is actually too simplistic. The reason the Dallas offense was so great was because they could score and control the clock whenever they wanted. Teams that score a lot of points generally are fast break offenses but are not as proficient of controlling the clock and wearing down the other team in the 4th quarter.

Actually, the real measure should be points scored per drive. That way you don't penalize teams who score quickly for having more possessions or teams that score slowly for having fewer.Still, total points is a pretty good measure, because if you're a high scoring offense, you're going to want to have as many possessions as possible. If every game lasted just 1 possession each, fluky things might happen, but if each game lasted 100 possessions each, the better team would win the overwhelming majority of the time. As a result, quick-strike offenses give their team an advantage (assuming their team is better than the other team) in that they give the team more chances both to score and to get a stop.

I think you have to also factor in time of possession and balance. The best thing that those early 90's Cowboys teams did was kill the clock and physically beat a defense into submission. Many great offenses put their defenses into bad positions because they scored so fast. Not the Cowboys. They'd be in a tight game in the third quarter and put together a 14, 15 or 16 play drive that just crushed the other team's spirits. At the same time they could score when they had to.

Scoring fast never puts a defense in a bad position. If you get a TD, then the best the other team can do is get a TD of their own, at which point you're right back where you started (i.e. you can never lose ground in scoring differential by scoring a TD, whether quick or slow). The problem is when teams give the ball back too quickly through a means OTHER than scoring a TD that problems arise. The whole idea that teams can score TDs too quickly is a MYTH.If a team scored a TD on the first play of every drive, that team would win every single game. Nobody would be worried about it scoring "too quickly".

4. '83 Redskins - 541 points scored

This would have been known as the best Redskins team of all time but for the humiliating loss to the Raiders in the Super Bowl. In addition to the ridiculous offensive output, they ended the year with a +42 turnover differential. Think about that - they averaged almost 3 more turnovers per game than their opponents got. It's one of hte most amazing NFL single-season stats I can think of and it gives you a good idea as to how they could have scored that many points.

You mention those stats like they somehow aren't related. It's not an "in addition"... they scored 541 points *BECAUSE* they were +42 in turnover differential.Getting the ball with a short field sure makes it a lot easier to put some points on the board.

 

[LoveMuscle]

To take it a little further...

The '92 Cowboys scored over 30 points in 6 of their 16 regular season games.

The '96 Packers scored over 30 points in 8 of their 16 regualr season games.

The '98 Broncos scored over 30 points in 10 of their 16 regular season games.

The '84 Dolphins scored over 30 points in 9 of their 16 regular season games.

The '81 Charger scored over 30 poins in 6 of their 16 regular season games.

The '98 Vikings scored over 30 points in 11 of their 16 regular season games.

The '83 Redkins scored over 30 points in 11 of their 16 regular season games.

The '04 Colts scored over 30 points in 10 of their 16 regular season games.

The '99 Rams scored over 30 points in 12 of their 16 regular season games.

The '94 49ers scored over 30 points in 10 of their 16 regular season games.

1. '94 49ers - 505 points scored (team won the Super Bowl)

2. '99 Rams - 526 points scored (team won the Super Bowl)

3. '04 Colts - 522 points scored

4. '83 Redskins - 541 points scored

5. '98 Vikings - 556 points scored

6. '81 Chargers - 478 points scored

7. '84 Dolphins - 513 points scored

8. '98 Broncos - 501 points scored (team won the Super Bowl)

9. '96 Packers - 456 points scored (team won the Super Bowl)

10. '92 Cowboys - 409 points scored (team won the Super Bowl)

Just for fun, would somebody with more time on their hands than me care to look up the other mentioned candidates (early '90s Bills, Warren Moon's Oilers) to see how they compare?

 

[Ghost Rider]

Only twice with Warren Moon as the QB did the Houston Oilers score over 400 points in a single season:

'88 Oilers: 15th in yardage, 2nd in points scored with 424

'90 Oilers: 1st in yardage, 2nd in points scored with 405

The Jim Kelly-era Bills best season offensively was in '91, when they were 1st in yardage and 2nd in points scored with 458. However, that same season, the Redskins offense was better, scoring 485 points and kicking the snout of the Bills in the Super Bowl. There would be no justification for the putting the '91 Bills on and leaving the '91 Redskins off and since it appears they were only putting one season per franchise in the top 10 (and the '83 record-setting Redskins made it, instead of the '91 Redskins), that is probably why the '91 Bills were left off.

 

[Ghost Rider]

You mention those stats like they somehow aren't related. It's not an "in addition"... they scored 541 points *BECAUSE* they were +42 in turnover differential.

Speaking of turnovers, that is probably a major reason, aside from the Super Bowl win, why the '99 Rams made the top 10 instead of the '01 Rams. Without looking it up, I think the '01 Rams offense scored more points and had more yardage than the '99 Rams and also faced a tougher schedule, but they turned the ball over a ton more.

 

[Assani Fisher]

The '92 Cowboys did nothing but break your will on offense.  They could get what they needed when they needed it.  They didn't pile on the points because they got a two touchdown lead by the half and sat on it in the 3rd/4th quarters.

Out of all of these, I'd say that the offense I most feared was the 1998 Vikings. I was terrified of the Broncos having to face them because while I knew the Broncos could get 30+ against the Vikes' D, their soft spot was exactly the Vikings' strength.

You said exactly what I knew every Broncos fan thought in 1998, no way did Denver want to play Minnesota in the Super Bowl, they had to be throwing a party when Atlanta luckd out and beat us. Minnesota had the best offense EVER, how they are only top 5 is beyond me. Minnesota vs. Denver would have been a great Super Bowl, with Minnesota coming out on top and John Elway going out a loser.

You don't happen to be a bit biased there, huh?

 

[jurb26]

The '92 Cowboys did nothing but break your will on offense. They could get what they needed when they needed it. They didn't pile on the points because they got a two touchdown lead by the half and sat on it in the 3rd/4th quarters.

Out of all of these, I'd say that the offense I most feared was the 1998 Vikings. I was terrified of the Broncos having to face them because while I knew the Broncos could get 30+ against the Vikes' D, their soft spot was exactly the Vikings' strength.

You said exactly what I knew every Broncos fan thought in 1998, no way did Denver want to play Minnesota in the Super Bowl, they had to be throwing a party when Atlanta luckd out and beat us. Minnesota had the best offense EVER, how they are only top 5 is beyond me. Minnesota vs. Denver would have been a great Super Bowl, with Minnesota coming out on top and John Elway going out a loser.

You don't happen to be a bit biased there, huh?

Its true even if he is bais though.

 

[GregR_2]

Good to see the Cowboys fans make a hard push to take away the local Patriot fan nickname. You have to applaud such dedication.

 

[Liquid Tension]

The fact that the 1992 Cowboys are only 10th is a joke.

One of the best O-lines in the history of the game.

The all time rushing leader.

Michael Irvin

Jay Novacek

Oh and some hall of fame QB named Troy Aikman.

Won't disagree with your premise here, but teh guys you named are the reason why I think Aikman was overrated. It would be hard not to look good surrounded buy that. Good yes, but great no

 

[vikingdave]

The '92 Cowboys did nothing but break your will on offense.  They could get what they needed when they needed it.  They didn't pile on the points because they got a two touchdown lead by the half and sat on it in the 3rd/4th quarters.

Out of all of these, I'd say that the offense I most feared was the 1998 Vikings. I was terrified of the Broncos having to face them because while I knew the Broncos could get 30+ against the Vikes' D, their soft spot was exactly the Vikings' strength.

You said exactly what I knew every Broncos fan thought in 1998, no way did Denver want to play Minnesota in the Super Bowl, they had to be throwing a party when Atlanta luckd out and beat us. Minnesota had the best offense EVER, how they are only top 5 is beyond me. Minnesota vs. Denver would have been a great Super Bowl, with Minnesota coming out on top and John Elway going out a loser.

You don't happen to be a bit biased there, huh?

Its true even if he is bais though.

Exactly, I may be biased but I know for a fact that Broncos fans were happy Atlanta beat us, Atlanta was good but they were the boggest fluke ever. Minnesota at least made the playoffs the next few years and even got back to the NFCCG.,Atlanta got lucky, it should have been a Vikings/Broncos SB, and that my friend would have been a great game, not the boring BS blowout like it was with Atlanta.

 

[Ghost Rider]

The '92 Cowboys did nothing but break your will on offense. They could get what they needed when they needed it. They didn't pile on the points because they got a two touchdown lead by the half and sat on it in the 3rd/4th quarters.

Out of all of these, I'd say that the offense I most feared was the 1998 Vikings. I was terrified of the Broncos having to face them because while I knew the Broncos could get 30+ against the Vikes' D, their soft spot was exactly the Vikings' strength.

You said exactly what I knew every Broncos fan thought in 1998, no way did Denver want to play Minnesota in the Super Bowl, they had to be throwing a party when Atlanta luckd out and beat us. Minnesota had the best offense EVER, how they are only top 5 is beyond me. Minnesota vs. Denver would have been a great Super Bowl, with Minnesota coming out on top and John Elway going out a loser.

You don't happen to be a bit biased there, huh?

Its true even if he is bais though.

Actually, it isn't true. If the Vikings weren't good enough to beat the Falcons at home, what makes anyone think they would have been good enough to beat the Broncos on a neutral field? Maybe if the Vikings hadn't choked at home, we would have found out for sure, but they weren't good enough to even get to the Super Bowl, so it really doesn't matter, does it?

 

[jurb26]

The '92 Cowboys did nothing but break your will on offense. They could get what they needed when they needed it. They didn't pile on the points because they got a two touchdown lead by the half and sat on it in the 3rd/4th quarters.

Out of all of these, I'd say that the offense I most feared was the 1998 Vikings. I was terrified of the Broncos having to face them because while I knew the Broncos could get 30+ against the Vikes' D, their soft spot was exactly the Vikings' strength.

You said exactly what I knew every Broncos fan thought in 1998, no way did Denver want to play Minnesota in the Super Bowl, they had to be throwing a party when Atlanta luckd out and beat us. Minnesota had the best offense EVER, how they are only top 5 is beyond me. Minnesota vs. Denver would have been a great Super Bowl, with Minnesota coming out on top and John Elway going out a loser.

You don't happen to be a bit biased there, huh?

Its true even if he is bais though.

Actually, it isn't true. If the Vikings weren't good enough to beat the Falcons at home, what makes anyone think they would have been good enough to beat the Broncos on a neutral field? Maybe if the Vikings hadn't choked at home, we would have found out for sure, but they weren't good enough to even get to the Super Bowl, so it really doesn't matter, does it?

 

[Jous]

I like how everyone says that the Vikings "choked" against the Atlanta Falcons.....it's making it sound like the Falcons were a 10-6 or 11-5 team, which they weren't! They were 14-2, with a very strong offense themselves and a solid defense. I think it's much more likely that the Falcons simply proved they were the better team and outplayed the Vikings, rather than the Vikings choking against an inferior foe.

In fact, I remember bakc in '98 I was extremely convinced Atlanta had a great shot to win and was trying to convince everyone else that they would do so.

 

[vikingdave]

Falcons got lucky, plain and simple. No way we should have lost a 20-7 lead....and Gary Anderson never misses.......OK I want to cry now.

 

[jurb26]

Falcons got lucky, plain and simple. No way we should have lost a 20-7 lead....and Gary Anderson never misses.......OK I want to cry now.

Im not a Vikes fan (Chi if anything) and thats they way I see it. Vikes were better team, just didn't play/kick better that day.

 

[Native]

Very good list. I think the top three are spot on. Those were the three most dominant offenses I remember watching in person.

 

[Despyzer]

I like how everyone says that the Vikings "choked" against the Atlanta Falcons.....it's making it sound like the Falcons were a 10-6 or 11-5 team, which they weren't! They were 14-2, with a very strong offense themselves and a solid defense. I think it's much more likely that the Falcons simply proved they were the better team and outplayed the Vikings, rather than the Vikings choking against an inferior foe.

In fact, I remember bakc in '98 I was extremely convinced Atlanta had a great shot to win and was trying to convince everyone else that they would do so.

The Falcons were 10-22 the previous two years and 9-23 the two years after (compared to 18-14 and 21-11 for the Vikings). Atlanta's fourteen win season was an abberation, pure and simple. They had no business in the Super Bowl. The Vikings were the better team; they just choked (which isn't anything to be proud of).

 

[Chase Stuart]

A list without the 2000 Rams on it isn't a list of the best offenses of all-time IMO. That was an offense that was unstoppable for extremely long stretches.

 

[thesurfshop19]

A list without the 2000 Rams on it isn't a list of the best offenses of all-time IMO. That was an offense that was unstoppable for extremely long stretches.

2 reasons they're not, given that only one season per team made the list.1. The 1999 team won the Super Bowl.

2. The 2000 team scored 3 points in a loss @ Carolina, by far the fewest in the 1999-2001 span.

 

[redman]

Exactly, I may be biased but I know for a fact that Broncos fans were happy Atlanta beat us, Atlanta was good but they were the boggest fluke ever. Minnesota at least made the playoffs the next few years and even got back to the NFCCG.,Atlanta got lucky, it should have been a Vikings/Broncos SB, and that my friend would have been a great game, not the boring BS blowout like it was with Atlanta.

It's a bit disingenuous to discuss Atlanta's subsequent decline as a reason why they weren't good in 1998. Jamal Anderson, one of the best RB's in the league at the time, went down to a serious knee injury in the first week of the following season, and he never recovered from that. The Falcons had no one to replace him with. However, I view both Randall Cunningham's and Chris Chandler's 1998 seasons with the same amount of skepticism insofar as how fluky they were. In truth, this was probably the first NFC Championship game that fully demonstrated how much parity there was in the new salary cap and FA era of the NFL - significant parts of all of the other NFC Champions to date had been assembled largely before those new rules were in place.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Falcons got lucky, plain and simple. No way we should have lost a 20-7 lead....and Gary Anderson never misses.......OK I want to cry now.

Lucky? The Falcons had a better defense (look at the numbers) and were a more balanced overall team. You can cry all you want about missed field goals or blown oppotunities, but when you blow a double digit lead at home in the NFC title game, you have no one to blame but yourself.

The Falcons were 10-22 the previous two years and 9-23 the two years after (compared to 18-14 and 21-11 for the Vikings). Atlanta's fourteen win season was an abberation, pure and simple. They had no business in the Super Bowl. The Vikings were the better team; they just choked (which isn't anything to be proud of).

That means nothing. The '98 Falcons were a great team; that is the point. But if you want to talk about abberations, here are the Vikings point-scoring totals of a 5-year span in the late 90's:

'96: 298 points scored

'97: 354 points scored

'98: 556 points scored

'99: 399 points scored

'00: 397 points scored

Also, the Vikings never even scored 400 points in a season again until 2003 (with a completely different team than the '98 team), so if you are going to say that the Falcons entire '98 season was an abberation, then so was the Vikings '98 season, from an offensive standpoint.

 

[thesurfshop19]

Great post by Ghost.

I want to re-iterate ... just because I felt that Denver's pass D didn't match up well against the Vikings that year, that doesn't mean that Minnesota had the better team in the playoffs.

IMO ... Denver matched up well against Atlanta, who matched up well against Minnesota, who matched up well against Denver. That's to say nothing of the Jets and 49ers, 2 excellent teams in their own right who may have been title favorites in some other years (2000 comes to mind).

As Ghost showed, the Vikings were the ones who had to prove they belonged, not the defending champion Broncos (who dispatched the previous champ).

 

[rhawkins68]

I can't stand the Niners but the '88 or '89 team should have easily made this list as well.

Obviously, they were picking the best year by those franchises, otherwise, the '00 Rams and '01 Rams, for example, probably would have been on there, too.

The fact that the 1992 Cowboys are only 10th is a joke.

One of the best O-lines in the history of the game.

The all time rushing leader.

Michael Irvin

Jay Novacek

Oh and some hall of fame QB named Troy Aikman.

Great offense, yes, but where did they finish in total offense that year and how many points did they score? Answer: They were 2nd in points scored and 4th in total yardage. That is hardly great enough to warrant being higher than 10th on this list, especially when you consider that no other team from '92 is on this list.

I had a similar argument with several Cowboys fans when I ranked the super bowl winners in another thread. Cowboys fans can't seem to comprehend that statistically their early 90s teams really weren't as great as they'd like us to believe.

Stats smats.....I'd put my left nut that the 1992 team could beat seveal of the teams on your top SB teams. I will generalize and say that most Fantasy fans put way too weight on Stats.I also find it funny that anytime their is argument about how good Emmitt is, the answer is always he played with the best O-line in history. Funny how this gets down played now.

Just my 0.02.

Fantasy football has made stats the most important factor in football. A great offense is not the one that puts up the most points, or the highest yds per pass play, etc. Those are the ones most fans like to watch.The great offense is the offense that consistantly gets first downs, does not make mental mistakes, has very few turn overs, does not put the D in a bad position and scores. This is also more than likely the team that most fans do not want to watch.

 

[buster c]

4. '83 Redskins - 541 points scored

This would have been known as the best Redskins team of all time but for the humiliating loss to the Raiders in the Super Bowl. In addition to the ridiculous offensive output, they ended the year with a +42 turnover differential. Think about that - they averaged almost 3 more turnovers per game than their opponents got. It's one of hte most amazing NFL single-season stats I can think of and it gives you a good idea as to how they could have scored that many points.

also bear in mind that this was a ball-control team with Riggins carrying the ball half the time. that the scoring record would last 15 years - transcending eras - is remarkable.

but their '91 team might have been better

 

[Chase Stuart]

A list without the 2000 Rams on it isn't a list of the best offenses of all-time IMO. That was an offense that was unstoppable for extremely long stretches.

2 reasons they're not, given that only one season per team made the list.1. The 1999 team won the Super Bowl.

2. The 2000 team scored 3 points in a loss @ Carolina, by far the fewest in the 1999-2001 span.

I don't see where it says only one season per team made the list.I also don't think either of those two reasons are particularly good, but that's just me.

Regardless, that Rams team was certainly one of the best offenses ever. Seems odd to not have them on a list, and they were significantly different than the '99 version.

 

[Ghost Rider]

The '00 and '01 Rams turned the ball over far more frequently than the '99 Rams did. I do not have the numbers handy, but I know the difference is pretty significant.

 

[Chase Stuart]

The '00 and '01 Rams turned the ball over far more frequently than the '99 Rams did. I do not have the numbers handy, but I know the difference is pretty significant.

That's true, but the '99 Rams benefitted a lot more from good D and ST. IIRC, the D/ST scored 8 TDs that year and was always putting the O in pretty decent field position. The very poor performance by the offense in the NFCC and SB is a huge knock on that Rams team as well -- three TDs in two games is well below average.

 

[Ghost Rider]

That's true, but the '99 Rams benefitted a lot more from good D and ST. IIRC, the D/ST scored 8 TDs that year and was always putting the O in pretty decent field position. The very poor performance by the offense in the NFCC and SB is a huge knock on that Rams team as well -- three TDs in two games is well below average.

How about the 7 TD's the '99 Rams scored in the NFC Divisional game? If playoff games are a part of this discussion, then all of them need to be discussed. 83 points in three playoff games (an average of almost 28 per game) is still pretty damn impressive.I agree, though, that the '99 team benefited from those things you mentioned, not to mention having an easier schedule. In fact, I would submit that the first six games in '00 were possibly the best stretch an NFL offense has ever had. They were just sick, but the injury to Warner's hand took their momentum away and they never regained that offensive consistency the rest of the season, although they still did have games where the offense played great.

 

[SSOG]

I hate to interject a little bit of hard statistical analysis into an otherwise very fun thread... but here goes, anyway.

First off, the background. There's this site called www.footballoutsiders.com. What they do is they track EVERY SINGLE PLAY OF EVERY SINGLE GAME for the entire season, and compare that play to league average, adjusted for down, distance, and opposition. If the average run on 1st and 10 against the Chicago Bears when leading by 3 points nets 3 yards, and you run on 1st and 10 against the Chicago Bears when leading by 3 for 9 yards, then that is an "above average" play. Anyway, at the end of the season, they total the results from every play to come up with a value for how well that team played that season.

Remember, these totals are ADJUSTED FOR OPPOSITION, so playing an easy schedule will not inflate your DVOA numbers.

Anyway, first, there's the contention that Atlanta was an inferior team to Minnesota in 1998. That's a fallacy. See for yourself. Atlanta had a DVOA of 32.5%, compared to Minny's 29.1%. Even more, Atlanta was *MUCH* hotter heading into the playoffs than Minny was (45.9% weighted DVOA compared to Minny's 26.8% weighted DVOA). Regardless, NEITHER of these teams were the best in the NFL that season... and neither was Denver, for that matter. The best team in the NFL that year was... New York Jets (34.5% DVOA, 41.1% weighted DVOA). Also, the 1998 Denver Broncos offense was MUCH stronger than the 1998 Vikings offense, but the Vikings faced the 21st hardest schedule of opposing defenses, and the Broncos faced the 6th hardest schedule of opposing defenses.

Atlanta very much deserved their ticket to the superbowl that season, moreso than did Minnesota.

Anyway, using the Football Outsiders statistical database again, which goes back as far as 1998, the best offenses of the last 8 seasons were...

2004 Indianapolis Colts (38.9% DVOA)

2005 Indianapolis Colts (32.5% DVOA)

1998 Denver Broncos (32.2% DVOA)

2000 St. Louis Rams (31.4% DVOA)

2002 Kansas City Chiefs (29.6% DVOA)

2005 Seattle Seahawks (29.3% DVOA)

2004 Kansas City Chiefs (29.0% DVOA)

2003 Kansas City Chiefs (28.4% DVOA)

2004 Minnesota Vikings (28.0% DVOA)

2000 Indianapolis Colts (27.5% DVOA)

1998 SanFran 49ers (26.4% DVOA)

2001 St. Louis Rams (25.6% DVOA)

1998 Minny Vikings (24.0% DVOA)

The 1999 St. Louis Rams had a "paltry" 18.3% DVOA, mostly because of their pathetic schedule.

 

[BigTex]

The '92 Cowboys did nothing but break your will on offense.  They could get what they needed when they needed it.  They didn't pile on the points because they got a two touchdown lead by the half and sat on it in the 3rd/4th quarters.

This seems to have a little hyperbole in it. Most of the teams on this list were very, very good and nearly all of them won a ton of double-digit games.In fact, by my count only the 1981 Chargers and 2004 Colts won fewer double-digit games (from teams on that list) than the 1992 Cowboys. Obviously, this is a flawed look given schedule strength and all (no question the 1992 Cowboys played a far tougher schedule than, say, the 1998 Broncos), but it does give some basic directional indicators.

The 1992 Cowboys were great on all sides of the ball, but I don't think I can bump them too much higher on the list. Anything you say about the Cowboys you can say about every last team on this list, 4 of which won Super Bowls just like the Cowboys did.

Out of all of these, I'd say that the offense I most feared was the 1998 Vikings. I was terrified of the Broncos having to face them because while I knew the Broncos could get 30+ against the Vikes' D, their soft spot was exactly the Vikings' strength.

WisdomSo, ignore the schedule and base "best" off of points only and forget about opponent............hhmmm. This seems to be what some are basing their statements on and if this is true then your analysis is flawed.

The NFC is a monster and let's not think about the most dominate division in all of the NFL the NFC East. Any team the comes/came out of the East to win the Superbowl gets my respect because the East is brutal.

Now the 92' Cowboys

Like someone has already stated

They were 2nd in points scored and 4th in total yardage. That is hardly great enough to warrant being higher than 10th on this list, especially when you consider that no other team from '92 is on this list

.92 Cowboys:

NFC Divisional Playoff: won 34 - 10 vs. Philadelphia Eagles

NFC Championship Game: won 30 - 20 at San Francisco 49ers

Super Bowl: won 52 - 17 at Buffalo Bills

Hmmmmm

Phily's D was ranked #6 and their O ranked #5

San Fran's D was ranked #3 and their O ranked #1

Da Bills D was ranked #14 and their O ranked #3

So the #2 in scoring in 92, beat the #1, #3 and #5 scoring scoring offenses and "outscored" them by an average of 23 points Yeah you guys are right they are lucky to be on this list.

Oh and ah.............52 pts in the Superbowl. Is that a record?

 

[Mr. Mojo]

I also place the Bills higher than the Cowboys.

A very good ofense in the Cowboys vs. a great offense that all teams feared and many tried to copy in the Bills.

No contest.

 

[thesurfshop19]

I don't see where it says only one season per team made the list.

I also don't think either of those two reasons are particularly good, but that's just me.

Regardless, that Rams team was certainly one of the best offenses ever. Seems odd to not have them on a list, and they were significantly different than the '99 version.

Well, given that only one season per team made the list, I think that's a pretty good indicator that only one season per team made the list.If you do a little critical thinking, it sure seems clear they evaluated the 1999-2001 Rams as a whole and picked the one they felt was best. In fact, you don't even have you think, you just have to read!

The "Greatest Show on Turf" was brilliant from 1999 through 2001, and it's difficult to choose one year out of the three as the ultimate Rams offense. But the Rams won the Super Bowl in 1999, and that's when the NFL first realized that stopping St. Louis was virtually impossible. Third-string QB Kurt Warner came out of nowhere to throw 41 touchdowns, and the brilliant Marshall Faulk ran for 1,381 yards and had 1,048 yards receiving.

Fine, you like the 2000 team. They took the 1999 team because at the end of the day that team won the championship. The 2000 team was arguably too streaky to be counted on consistently like the 1999 and 2001 versions, and it laid a complete goose egg in an important game late in the season.Sorry if their rationale doesn't pass your test, guy.

 

[Ghost Rider]

SSOG, great post and a lot of good info at that site. It is worth pointing out, though, that those rankings take into account when you lose your games, so the fact that Broncos lost in weeks 15 and 16 (the second loss of which was a meaningless game) was a major reason why they finished behind the Jets and Falcons, both of whom were fighting for playoff positioning until their last game of the season, in DVOA.

BigTex, if you want to talk about coming up big in the postseason against great defenses, look no further than the '98 Broncos. In the postseason, they outscored their opponents 95-32. The only three touchdowns they gave up in the postseason were a one-yard TD drive to the Jets after a blocked punt, a kickoff return for a touchdown by Tim Dwight in the Super Bowl and a garbage score by the Falcons in the last two minutes of the Super Bowl when Denver had the game already won (they were leading 34-13 at the time). Not to mention scoring a combined 95 points against the number 1 (Miami), 2 (Jets) and 4 (Falcons) scoring defenses in '98.

 

[thesurfshop19]

92 Cowboys:

NFC Divisional Playoff: won 34 - 10 vs. Philadelphia Eagles

NFC Championship Game: won 30 - 20 at San Francisco 49ers

Super Bowl: won 52 - 17 at Buffalo Bills

Hmmmmm

Phily's D was ranked #6 and their O ranked #5

San Fran's D was ranked #3 and their O ranked #1

Da Bills D was ranked #14 and their O ranked #3

So the #2 in scoring in 92, beat the #1, #3 and #5 scoring scoring offenses and "outscored" them by an average of 23 points Yeah you guys are right they are lucky to be on this list.

Oh and ah.............52 pts in the Superbowl. Is that a record?

No one is saying that Dallas didn't have a great offense. But objectively, it's hard to argue that they ever, from 1992-1995, had a better offense than San Franciscffense, not total team. Dallas had a better defense than their opponents.

As for that Super Bowl, they forced 9 turnovers in that Super Bowl against the Bills and the defense scored 14 of those 52 points (which is not a record, SF had 55 in 1989) themselves.

It was an amazing performance by that offense, which is why that team makes the list. This is a tough list to make and I think they're simply in the most fair spot that you can put them.

 

[thesurfshop19]

Not to mention scoring a combined 95 points against the number 1 (Miami), 2 (Jets) and 4 (Falcons) scoring defenses in '98.

I knew that Denver's D basically played perfect in the postseason (essentially giving up only 4 FGs) but I definitely didn't recall just how good the defenses they played against were.

I know Miami was missing some players so I slightly discount the 31 offensive points there, but the 23 points against the Jets (20 in the 3rd!) and especially the 34 against the Falcons (with 2 missed FGs!) are elevated even more in my mind.

 

[thesurfshop19]

2004 Indianapolis Colts (38.9% DVOA)

2005 Indianapolis Colts (32.5% DVOA)

1998 Denver Broncos (32.2% DVOA)

2000 St. Louis Rams (31.4% DVOA)

2002 Kansas City Chiefs (29.6% DVOA)

2005 Seattle Seahawks (29.3% DVOA)

2004 Kansas City Chiefs (29.0% DVOA)

2003 Kansas City Chiefs (28.4% DVOA)

2004 Minnesota Vikings (28.0% DVOA)

2000 Indianapolis Colts (27.5% DVOA)

1998 SanFran 49ers (26.4% DVOA)

2001 St. Louis Rams (25.6% DVOA)

1998 Minny Vikings (24.0% DVOA)

I'm a huge fan of FootballOutsiders and am looking forward to the new, improved DVOA ratings in PFP2006.What are your thoughts on this possibly overadjusting for strength of schedule, though? It just seems that when they have the 2004 Vikings offense ahead (slightly? substantially?) of the 1998 Vikings, it starts to become a little unbelievable in my mind.

I know that using face validity to build a model is not always a good idea, but as overrated as those 1999 Rams were (by virtue of a ridiculously easy schedule) I don't know that I can put the 2004 Vikings, 2000 Colts, and 3 Chiefs teams ahead of them. EDIT: I looked at those 3 Chiefs teams' numbers again and I think it's fair to place them ahead of those 1999 Rams. The 2004 Vikings and 2000 Colts, though, I still don't know ....

 

[BigTex]

92 Cowboys:

NFC Divisional Playoff: won 34 - 10 vs. Philadelphia Eagles

NFC Championship Game: won 30 - 20 at San Francisco 49ers

Super Bowl: won 52 - 17 at Buffalo Bills

Hmmmmm

Phily's D was ranked #6 and their O ranked #5

San Fran's D was ranked #3 and their O ranked #1

Da Bills D was ranked #14 and their O ranked #3

So the #2 in scoring in 92, beat the #1, #3 and #5 scoring scoring offenses and "outscored" them by an average of 23 points Yeah you guys are right they are lucky to be on this list. 

Oh and ah.............52 pts in the Superbowl. Is that a record?

No one is saying that Dallas didn't have a great offense. But objectively, it's hard to argue that they ever, from 1992-1995, had a better offense than San Franciscffense, not total team. Dallas had a better defense than their opponents.

As for that Super Bowl, they forced 9 turnovers in that Super Bowl against the Bills and the defense scored 14 of those 52 points (which is not a record, SF had 55 in 1989) themselves.

It was an amazing performance by that offense, which is why that team makes the list. This is a tough list to make and I think they're simply in the most fair spot that you can put them.

This is why rankings like these are flawed. When ranking an offense, defense will alwalys effect (positive or negative) on how, why and what make the offense tick. What I'm saying is how a defense plays can have some impact on how an offense plays. For instance why do the Ram throw so much???? Cause the defense is not that great, Mark rack up yards just to catch or keep up with the other team, ect.....

I'm not refuting (sp?) the ranking, just replying to those that say the Cowboys are "lucky" to be in the top ten. That's laughable at best.

 

[BigTex]

P.S I agree with Stuart, the 2000 Rams were one of the best!

 

[SSOG]

The '92 Cowboys did nothing but break your will on offense. They could get what they needed when they needed it. They didn't pile on the points because they got a two touchdown lead by the half and sat on it in the 3rd/4th quarters.

This seems to have a little hyperbole in it. Most of the teams on this list were very, very good and nearly all of them won a ton of double-digit games.In fact, by my count only the 1981 Chargers and 2004 Colts won fewer double-digit games (from teams on that list) than the 1992 Cowboys. Obviously, this is a flawed look given schedule strength and all (no question the 1992 Cowboys played a far tougher schedule than, say, the 1998 Broncos), but it does give some basic directional indicators.

The 1992 Cowboys were great on all sides of the ball, but I don't think I can bump them too much higher on the list. Anything you say about the Cowboys you can say about every last team on this list, 4 of which won Super Bowls just like the Cowboys did.

Out of all of these, I'd say that the offense I most feared was the 1998 Vikings. I was terrified of the Broncos having to face them because while I knew the Broncos could get 30+ against the Vikes' D, their soft spot was exactly the Vikings' strength.

WisdomSo, ignore the schedule and base "best" off of points only and forget about opponent............hhmmm. This seems to be what some are basing their statements on and if this is true then your analysis is flawed.

The NFC is a monster and let's not think about the most dominate division in all of the NFL the NFC East. Any team the comes/came out of the East to win the Superbowl gets my respect because the East is brutal.

The teams Dallas faced in 1992 went a combined 106-134 (44.2%), not counting the games they played against Dallas. If you include the games against Dallas, that falls to 109-147, or a 42.6% winning percentage. That's not a soft schedule, that's a PATHETICALLY soft schedule.Here's the adjusted SoS of all 10 of the offenses (i.e. the winning percentage of the teams they faced OUTSIDE of games against that offense, so winning more games doesn't reduce your SoS).

1992 Dallas: 44.2%

1996 Green Bay: 52.5%

1998 Denver: 47.5%

1984 Miami: 45.6%

1981 San Diego: 48.8%

1998 Minnesota: 45.4%

1983 Washington: 50.2%

2004 Indianapolis: 51.7%

1999 St. Louis: 37.5% (!)

1994 San Francisco: 48.3%

I completely agree with your arguement, though. We should absolutely take strength of schedule into account when looking at these offenses. That provides just one more reason to kick that undeserving 1992 Dallas squad off the list.

SSOG, great post and a lot of good info at that site. It is worth pointing out, though, that those rankings take into account when you lose your games, so the fact that Broncos lost in weeks 15 and 16 (the second loss of which was a meaningless game) was a major reason why they finished behind the Jets and Falcons, both of whom were fighting for playoff positioning until their last game of the season, in DVOA.

Well, in the standard DVOA formula, WHEN the losses occur is NOT taken into consideration. However, the fact that the losses were in meaningless games might be important. I didn't bother trying to make that arguement, because it didn't matter for the point that I was trying to make (that Minnesota wasn't nearly as scary as people thought in 1998), and I didn't want to be accused of playing homerism. I was merely objectively reporting the stats.

I'm a huge fan of FootballOutsiders and am looking forward to the new, improved DVOA ratings in PFP2006.

What are your thoughts on this possibly overadjusting for strength of schedule, though? It just seems that when they have the 2004 Vikings offense ahead (slightly? substantially?) of the 1998 Vikings, it starts to become a little unbelievable in my mind.

I know that using face validity to build a model is not always a good idea, but as overrated as those 1999 Rams were (by virtue of a ridiculously easy schedule) I don't know that I can put the 2004 Vikings, 2000 Colts, and 3 Chiefs teams ahead of them. EDIT: I looked at those 3 Chiefs teams' numbers again and I think it's fair to place them ahead of those 1999 Rams. The 2004 Vikings and 2000 Colts, though, I still don't know ....

I don't think it's hard at all to put the 2004 Minnesota Vikings ahead of the 1998 Minnesota Vikings. First off, the 1998 Vikings had a drastically better defense, and pulled in more turnovers. More turnovers = more short fields = more points. Better defense = more short fields = more points. The 1998 Minnesota Vikings also had a better return game, which means more short fields, which means more points.Look at the rest of the numbers, though. In 2004, the offense passed for about 250 more yards with a higher completion percentage, and almost .2 more yards per attempt... and while they passed for 2 fewer TDs, they also threw 4 fewer INTs. In addition, the rushing offense averaged MORE THAN .4 MORE YARDS PER CARRY.

In other words... more yards per pass attempt, more yards per rush attempt, fewer incomplete passes, fewer turnovers... I don't think it's a stretch to call that offense better than the 1998 version.

 

[thesurfshop19]

P.S I agree with Stuart, the 2000 Rams were one of the best!

Agreed.I was merely explaining why SI picked the 1999 team out of the 3 to be on the list. You can't really go wrong with any of them.

 

[thesurfshop19]

I don't think it's hard at all to put the 2004 Minnesota Vikings ahead of the 1998 Minnesota Vikings. First off, the 1998 Vikings had a drastically better defense, and pulled in more turnovers. More turnovers = more short fields = more points. Better defense = more short fields = more points. The 1998 Minnesota Vikings also had a better return game, which means more short fields, which means more points.

Look at the rest of the numbers, though. In 2004, the offense passed for about 250 more yards with a higher completion percentage, and almost .2 more yards per attempt... and while they passed for 2 fewer TDs, they also threw 4 fewer INTs. In addition, the rushing offense averaged MORE THAN .4 MORE YARDS PER CARRY.

In other words... more yards per pass attempt, more yards per rush attempt, fewer incomplete passes, fewer turnovers... I don't think it's a stretch to call that offense better than the 1998 version.

Fair enough. Great points and I can definitely see where you're coming from. My hangup is that this isn't a 14-point difference (1999 Rams vs. 2000 Rams), but rather a 151-point difference over the term of the season.

Clearly, strength of schedule and strength of team contributes to that, but 10 pts/game would seemingly be outside the range of those factors, no?

I guess not. Looking closer at the stats it definitely becomes clear how the rankings came out that way. I guess it's just tough to believe?

 

[BigTex]

The '92 Cowboys did nothing but break your will on offense.  They could get what they needed when they needed it.  They didn't pile on the points because they got a two touchdown lead by the half and sat on it in the 3rd/4th quarters.

This seems to have a little hyperbole in it. Most of the teams on this list were very, very good and nearly all of them won a ton of double-digit games.In fact, by my count only the 1981 Chargers and 2004 Colts won fewer double-digit games (from teams on that list) than the 1992 Cowboys. Obviously, this is a flawed look given schedule strength and all (no question the 1992 Cowboys played a far tougher schedule than, say, the 1998 Broncos), but it does give some basic directional indicators.

The 1992 Cowboys were great on all sides of the ball, but I don't think I can bump them too much higher on the list. Anything you say about the Cowboys you can say about every last team on this list, 4 of which won Super Bowls just like the Cowboys did.

Out of all of these, I'd say that the offense I most feared was the 1998 Vikings. I was terrified of the Broncos having to face them because while I knew the Broncos could get 30+ against the Vikes' D, their soft spot was exactly the Vikings' strength.

WisdomSo, ignore the schedule and base "best" off of points only and forget about opponent............hhmmm. This seems to be what some are basing their statements on and if this is true then your analysis is flawed.

The NFC is a monster and let's not think about the most dominate division in all of the NFL the NFC East. Any team the comes/came out of the East to win the Superbowl gets my respect because the East is brutal.

The teams Dallas faced in 1992 went a combined 106-134 (44.2%), not counting the games they played against Dallas. If you include the games against Dallas, that falls to 109-147, or a 42.6% winning percentage. That's not a soft schedule, that's a PATHETICALLY soft schedule.Here's the adjusted SoS of all 10 of the offenses (i.e. the winning percentage of the teams they faced OUTSIDE of games against that offense, so winning more games doesn't reduce your SoS).

1992 Dallas: 44.2%

1996 Green Bay: 52.5%

1998 Denver: 47.5%

1984 Miami: 45.6%

1981 San Diego: 48.8%

1998 Minnesota: 45.4%

1983 Washington: 50.2%

2004 Indianapolis: 51.7%

1999 St. Louis: 37.5% (!)

1994 San Francisco: 48.3%

I completely agree with your arguement, though. We should absolutely take strength of schedule into account when looking at these offenses. That provides just one more reason to kick that undeserving 1992 Dallas squad off the list.

SSOG, great post and a lot of good info at that site.  It is worth pointing out, though, that those rankings take into account when you lose your games, so the fact that Broncos lost in weeks 15 and 16 (the second loss of which was a meaningless game) was a major reason why they finished behind the Jets and Falcons, both of whom were fighting for playoff positioning until their last game of the season, in DVOA.

Well, in the standard DVOA formula, WHEN the losses occur is NOT taken into consideration. However, the fact that the losses were in meaningless games might be important. I didn't bother trying to make that arguement, because it didn't matter for the point that I was trying to make (that Minnesota wasn't nearly as scary as people thought in 1998), and I didn't want to be accused of playing homerism. I was merely objectively reporting the stats.

I'm a huge fan of FootballOutsiders and am looking forward to the new, improved DVOA ratings in PFP2006.

What are your thoughts on this possibly overadjusting for strength of schedule, though?  It just seems that when they have the 2004 Vikings offense ahead (slightly? substantially?) of the 1998 Vikings, it starts to become a little unbelievable in my mind.

I know that using face validity to build a model is not always a good idea, but as overrated as those 1999 Rams were (by virtue of a ridiculously easy schedule) I don't know that I can put the 2004 Vikings, 2000 Colts, and 3 Chiefs teams ahead of them.  EDIT: I looked at those 3 Chiefs teams' numbers again and I think it's fair to place them ahead of those 1999 Rams.  The 2004 Vikings and 2000 Colts, though, I still don't know ....

I don't think it's hard at all to put the 2004 Minnesota Vikings ahead of the 1998 Minnesota Vikings. First off, the 1998 Vikings had a drastically better defense, and pulled in more turnovers. More turnovers = more short fields = more points. Better defense = more short fields = more points. The 1998 Minnesota Vikings also had a better return game, which means more short fields, which means more points.Look at the rest of the numbers, though. In 2004, the offense passed for about 250 more yards with a higher completion percentage, and almost .2 more yards per attempt... and while they passed for 2 fewer TDs, they also threw 4 fewer INTs. In addition, the rushing offense averaged MORE THAN .4 MORE YARDS PER CARRY.

In other words... more yards per pass attempt, more yards per rush attempt, fewer incomplete passes, fewer turnovers... I don't think it's a stretch to call that offense better than the 1998 version.

Another great post for which I agree with most. One thing the Sos you've provided doesn't show: the NFC East had three teams to make the playoffs: Dallas, Phily, and the Skinz. The NFC East was the best, these teams played each other twice. Anyone that followed the East knows how brutal it is/was.

But hey, I like the way you look at things.

 

[SSOG]

Another great post for which I agree with most. One thing the Sos you've provided doesn't show: the NFC East had three teams to make the playoffs: Dallas, Phily, and the Skinz. The NFC East was the best, these teams played each other twice. Anyone that followed the East knows how brutal it is/was.

But hey, I like the way you look at things.

I agree that it was probably the best division in the league that season, but it doesn't matter if your tough games are divisional games or not... a soft schedule is a soft schedule. Dallas played 5 games all season against teams with a winning record (twice against 9-7 Washington, twice against 11-5 Philly, and once against 10-6 KC).That was a very good 1992 Dallas squad that deserved their playoff spot and their superbowl win... but they don't deserve the label of "10th best offense of the past 25 years". Now, if we're making a list of top-10 Superbowl Champions from that span, I think Dallas merits mention.

 

[raidergil]

The '83 Redskins didn't win the Super Bowl because the players spent the night before the game at Mons Venus or elsewhere in Tampa area watering holes. This is a pretty well know fact in DC. So don't judge on Super Bowl wins alone.

The Raiders were a better team that day, but over the season, 541 points and the Riggo Drill to end games were a staple of Redskins football at that time.

Hold on! This is the first time I've ever heard someone claim their team lost to the Raiders, because they were the ones partying too hard. Amatuers. If they'd have gotten sleep maybe they could have replayed the great game these 2 had earlier in the year - something like 37-35.

 

[BigTex]

Another great post for which I agree with most. One thing the Sos you've provided doesn't show: the NFC East had three teams to make the playoffs: Dallas, Phily, and the Skinz. The NFC East was the best, these teams played each other twice. Anyone that followed the East knows how brutal it is/was.

But hey, I like the way you look at things.

I agree that it was probably the best division in the league that season, but it doesn't matter if your tough games are divisional games or not...a soft schedule is a soft schedule. Dallas played 5 games all season against teams with a winning record (twice against 9-7 Washington, twice against 11-5 Philly, and once against 10-6 KC).That was a very good 1992 Dallas squad that deserved their playoff spot and their superbowl win... but they don't deserve the label of "10th best offense of the past 25 years". Now, if we're making a list of top-10 Superbowl Champions from that span, I think Dallas merits mention.

Hello SSOG, you said:

a soft schedule is a soft schedule.

I agree "a soft schedule is a soft schedule."You said:

Dallas played 5 games all season against teams with a winning record (twice against 9-7 Washington, twice against 11-5 Philly, and once against 10-6 KC).

So..........Look at Denver show ranked #8

#8 Denver Broncos 1998 (14-2) *Won the Super Bowl

New England Patriots (9-7)W

Dallas Cowboys(10-6)W

Jacksonville Jaguars(11-5)W

Miami Dolphins(10-6)L

Played four teams with winning records and went 3-1.

Or.............the #5 Vikes

#5 Minnesota Vikings 1998 (15-1) *Lost in the Championship Game

Green Bay Packers(11-5)W

Green Bay Packers(11-5)W

Dallas Cowboys(10-6)W

Jacksonville Jaguars(11.5)W

**Played four teams with winning records and went 4-0

Or..............the #2 Rams

#2 St. Louis Rams 1999 (13-3) *Lost in the Super Bowl

Tennessee Titans (13-3)-L

**Played only one team with a winning record and they lost that game.

And..............the #10 Cowboys

#10 Dallas Cowboys 1992 (13-3) *Won the Super Bowl

Washington Redskins(9-7)W

Philadelphia Eagles(11-5)L

Kansas City Chiefs(10-6)W

Philadelphia Eagles(11-5)W

Washington Redskins(9-7)L

Played five teams with winning records and went 3-2.

 

[SSOG]

Another great post for which I agree with most. One thing the Sos you've provided doesn't show: the NFC East had three teams to make the playoffs: Dallas, Phily, and the Skinz. The NFC East was the best, these teams played each other twice. Anyone that followed the East knows how brutal it is/was.

But hey, I like the way you look at things.

I agree that it was probably the best division in the league that season, but it doesn't matter if your tough games are divisional games or not...a soft schedule is a soft schedule. Dallas played 5 games all season against teams with a winning record (twice against 9-7 Washington, twice against 11-5 Philly, and once against 10-6 KC).That was a very good 1992 Dallas squad that deserved their playoff spot and their superbowl win... but they don't deserve the label of "10th best offense of the past 25 years". Now, if we're making a list of top-10 Superbowl Champions from that span, I think Dallas merits mention.

Hello SSOG, you said:

a soft schedule is a soft schedule.

I agree "a soft schedule is a soft schedule."You said:

Dallas played 5 games all season against teams with a winning record (twice against 9-7 Washington, twice against 11-5 Philly, and once against 10-6 KC).

So..........Look at Denver show ranked #8

#8 Denver Broncos 1998 (14-2) *Won the Super Bowl

New England Patriots (9-7)W

Dallas Cowboys(10-6)W

Jacksonville Jaguars(11-5)W

Miami Dolphins(10-6)L

Played four teams with winning records and went 3-1.

Or.............the #5 Vikes

#5 Minnesota Vikings 1998 (15-1) *Lost in the Championship Game

Green Bay Packers(11-5)W

Green Bay Packers(11-5)W

Dallas Cowboys(10-6)W

Jacksonville Jaguars(11.5)W

**Played four teams with winning records and went 4-0

Or..............the #2 Rams

#2 St. Louis Rams 1999 (13-3) *Lost in the Super Bowl

Tennessee Titans (13-3)-L

**Played only one team with a winning record and they lost that game.

And..............the #10 Cowboys

#10 Dallas Cowboys 1992 (13-3) *Won the Super Bowl

Washington Redskins(9-7)W

Philadelphia Eagles(11-5)L

Kansas City Chiefs(10-6)W

Philadelphia Eagles(11-5)W

Washington Redskins(9-7)L

Played five teams with winning records and went 3-2.

Ummmm... did you entirely MISS this portion of my post?:

1992 Dallas: 44.2%

1996 Green Bay: 52.5%

1998 Denver: 47.5%

1984 Miami: 45.6%

1981 San Diego: 48.8%

1998 Minnesota: 45.4%

1983 Washington: 50.2%

2004 Indianapolis: 51.7%

1999 St. Louis: 37.5% (!)

1994 San Francisco: 48.3%

You say that we should take Dallas' schedule into consideration when we look at how many points they scored and yards they gained. I agree 100%. It's ridiculous that they didn't score more points or gain more yards with such a RIDICULOUSLY easy schedule.You bring up Denver and the Vikings... but both teams scored more points and put up more yards against a tougher schedule. You mention the Rams, who are one of the very few teams in the past 25 years that have had an easier schedule than the 1992 Dallas Cowboys... but the Rams put up ridiculous point and yardage totals!

Dallas's numbers and results do not merit a place on their list. Looking at how soft their schedule was only reinforces this point.

 

[redman]

The '83 Redskins didn't win the Super Bowl because the players spent the night before the game at Mons Venus or elsewhere in Tampa area watering holes.  This is a pretty well know fact in DC.  So don't judge on Super Bowl wins alone. 

The Raiders were a better team that day, but over the season, 541 points and the Riggo Drill to end games were a staple of Redskins football at that time.

Hold on! This is the first time I've ever heard someone claim their team lost to the Raiders, because they were the ones partying too hard. Amatuers. If they'd have gotten sleep maybe they could have replayed the great game these 2 had earlier in the year - something like 37-35.

It's sad but true. They were certainly not guaranteed of a win or anything had they stayed sober given the dog fight that they'd been in with the Raiders during the season and the overall quality of the Raiders team, but the score and their performance was a direct reflection of their ridiculous night out before the Super Bowl. Riggins was leading the way that night, from what I've heard, and I've never really forgiven him for that despite loving him as a lifelong 'Skins fan.

 

[schooner44]

The fact that the 1992 Cowboys are only 10th is a joke.

One of the best O-lines in the history of the game.

The all time rushing leader.

Michael Irvin

Jay Novacek

Oh and some hall of fame QB named Troy Aikman.

That "some HOF" QB Aikman was a game-managing QB and never the impact player like other QBs. They are lucky they even made the list.

 

[SSOG]

The fact that the 1992 Cowboys are only 10th is a joke.

One of the best O-lines in the history of the game.

The all time rushing leader.

Michael Irvin

Jay Novacek

Oh and some hall of fame QB named Troy Aikman.

That "some HOF" QB Aikman was a game-managing QB and never the impact player like other QBs. They are lucky they even made the list.

Aikman did everything Dallas ever asked of him."Game manager" is the most "backhanded compliment" out there, and it makes me sick. People call QBs "game managers" and compare them to Trent Dilfer, who was supposedly the ultimate "game manager". Newsflash: Dilfer wasn't a "game manager" in Baltimore, he was a sucky QB. Prorate his numbers over 16 games and he finished that season with 2670 yards, 21 TDs, and 19.5 Ints. That's not "managing the game", that's "sucking".

Game manager was a term invented to complement QBs who sucked, but whose teams won anyway, as a means of explaining how that team won (since popular belief holds that the QB is 100% responsible for his team's winning and losing). People saw QBs who sucked and whose teams won and thought "wow, they must be managing the game or something, they must be good at something". Game Manager is a term that is applied to the Trent Dilfer and Kyle Ortons of the world.

Troy Aikman was a fantastic QB. He played 12 seasons, and finished in the top 6 in yards per attempt 6 times (a 50% clip). YPA is the best tool for comparing QB performance, since yards favors QBs in pass-first offenses, and Comp% favors QBs in west coast offenses. Anyway, Aikman finished in the top 10 in ypa 50% of his seasons. For comparison purposes, Brett Favre has reached that mark 26.7% of the time. John Elway achieved it 50% of the time. Steve Young did it 46.7% of the time (although, in fairness to Young, a lot of that was because he spent a lot of years as a backup). Unitas did it 44% of the time, Bradshaw did it 50% of the time, Namath did it 46% of the time (although 5 of his 6 times was AFL only). Pretty much the only HoF QBs who ranked in the top 10 in ypa more frequently than Troy Aikman were Dan Marino and Joe Montana. So I suppose that's the knock on Aikman- he wasn't as much of an "impact passer" as Marino or Montana.

Going back to Steve Young and ypa... that's the reason why I stand by my claim that Young was the most dominant QB ever, in any era, at any time. Here's where Steve Young ranked in ypa from 1991 to 1998. 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, (didn't qualify, but was on track to finish 4th before getting injured), 2nd, 1st, 3rd. To put that into some historical perspective... I didn't see anyone else with more than TWO #1 finishes. Add in his rushing ability, and he was the most unstoppable QB in the history of the game.