Chase Stuart
Footballguy
***UPDATED WITH POLL****
I put the five teams from the article, along with the two AFL teams (who might be overrated when looking just at their raw regular season numbers), and an other. Please vote.
Some nutjob writer thinks this Giants team might be the worst Super Bowl champion ever:
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=479
I was rooting strongly for the Giants in this past Super Bowl and was very impressed with New York's victory. I also know that being considered the worst super bowl champion ever is like being the least impressive gold medalist: all deserve credit and praise for achieving such an incredible feat. Winning on the field is what counts, and who really cares what I have to say, anyway?
However, I was curious to see where New York ranked relative to other champions. Here's a list of all 42 Super Bowl Champions, sorted by record:
mia1972 14-0-0 1.000chi1985 15-1-0 0.938sfo1984 15-1-0 0.938rai1976 13-1-0 0.929was1982 8-1-0 0.889was1991 14-2-0 0.875den1998 14-2-0 0.875sfo1989 14-2-0 0.875nwe2004 14-2-0 0.875pit1978 14-2-0 0.875nyg1986 14-2-0 0.875nwe2003 14-2-0 0.875pit1975 12-2-0 0.857mia1973 12-2-0 0.857gnb1966 12-2-0 0.857dal1977 12-2-0 0.857clt1970 11-2-1 0.821ram1999 13-3-0 0.813gnb1996 13-3-0 0.813sfo1994 13-3-0 0.813dal1992 13-3-0 0.813nyg1990 13-3-0 0.813sfo1981 13-3-0 0.813dal1971 11-3-0 0.786kan1969 11-3-0 0.786nyj1968 11-3-0 0.786den1997 12-4-0 0.750rav2000 12-4-0 0.750pit1979 12-4-0 0.750tam2002 12-4-0 0.750dal1993 12-4-0 0.750dal1995 12-4-0 0.750pit1974 10-3-1 0.750rai1983 12-4-0 0.750clt2006 12-4-0 0.750was1987 11-4-0 0.733pit2005 11-5-0 0.688nwe2001 11-5-0 0.688rai1980 11-5-0 0.688gnb1967 9-4-1 0.679sfo1988 10-6-0 0.625nyg2007 10-6-0 0.625The next table shows each team's regular season points scored, points allowed, points differential, and differential per game for each team.
We can also sort the teams by Pythagorean record. The Pythagorean record is calculated by taking the points scored number raised to the 2.37th power, and dividing it by the sum of itself and the points allowed number raised to the 2.37th power. I've got a bit of evidence that indicates that the correct exponent is 2.60 instead of 2.37, but: 1) I'm not sure about that, and it's been on my to-do list to post about deriving the "correct" exponent for awhile; 2) in light of that, I'll go with the more generally accepted 2.37 number, since it doesn't matter too much, anyway. That link gives a full explanation of what the Pythagorean record is and why we should care about it.Additionally, great defensive teams are generally undervalued when using the difference between points scored and points allowed, because a 35-17 win counts for more than a 13-0 win, despite it being reasonable to conclude that the latter win was more impressive or more dominant. Teams like the '02 Bucs, '78 Steelers and '00 Ravens shoot up this list, while the '98 Broncos, '68 Jets and '94 49ers fall a bit.
chi1985 0.878pit1975 0.878mia1973 0.877mia1972 0.873ram1999 0.863gnb1996 0.863was1991 0.862sfo1984 0.852gnb1966 0.846kan1969 0.842rav2000 0.841dal1971 0.807pit1978 0.806tam2002 0.794sfo1989 0.790sfo1994 0.780dal1992 0.775nwe2004 0.774den1997 0.765dal1993 0.764dal1977 0.760den1998 0.759pit1974 0.757gnb1967 0.750pit1979 0.749nyg1990 0.749nyg1986 0.745pit2005 0.726nyj1968 0.722dal1995 0.722was1982 0.718rai1976 0.716nwe2003 0.711sfo1981 0.699clt1970 0.679nwe2001 0.676was1987 0.663rai1983 0.654sfo1988 0.631rai1980 0.601clt2006 0.600nyg2007 0.536Note: by this method, the last two Super Bowl champions were the worst two of all time. The two teams are the only SB champs to allow 350 points in a season. The Giants, of course, have been at the bottom of each list presented here so far. Does that mean New York's the worst SB Champ ever?To the extent that such a consensus exists, I'd posit that most have regarded the 2001 Patriots as the worst SB champion of all time. The 2006 Colts (last before this year's Giants in Pythagorean record) and the '88 49ers (last in actual record, tied with this year's Giants) were led by Manning and Montana, and both players were in their primes. Justifiable or not, that will exclude them from consideration for a majority of commentators. The '67 Packers weren't a very good team record-wide, but were middle of the pack in points differential and Pythagorean record, and were still The Lombardi Packers.
The '80 Raiders are probably the Pats best competitor for the title. The Silver and Black ranked last among the first 41 Super Bowl winners in points differential, third to last in record, and third to last in Pythagorean record. QB Jim Plunkett was never very good, and 1980 wasn't a particularly good year for him, either. Tom Flores won two Super Bowls but few consider him an elite coach, and his sub-.300 winning percentage in Seattle earns him no bonus points. Mark van Eeghen was nothing special (Antowain Smith-like?), and the Raiders ranked in the bottom half of the league in yards gained.
The '01 Patriots? New England ranked 19th in yards gained and 24th in yards allowed. Brady, Belichick, Light and Seymour were all unknowns at this point, and none of them besides Belichick were at an elite level in 2001. Whereas the '80 Raiders won four playoff games by 46 points, New England won its three playoff games by just thirteen points. The Pats beat better post-season opponents, but also won it particularly fluky ways. I think it's a pretty close fight between these two teams for the worst SB Champion ever. New England had four Pro Bowlers, Oakland six. According to the SRS, the Raiders have a +4.2 rating thanks to a slightly harder than average schedule, and the Patriots have a +4.3 rating thanks to a relatively easy schedule. (For first time readers of the blog, you can learn about the SRS here.) This one's a toss up, but do the Giants clearly steal the show?
New York had just one Pro Bowler. While Doug hasn't run the official 2007 SRS ratings yet, my less refined method (that usually comes within a decimal point or two) gives them a +3.3, thanks to having one of the ten hardest schedules in the league. That rating, of course, isn't very good for a Super Bowl champion. The Patriots, according to my preliminary system, rate at +20.1, which would be the highest ever by a wide margin. I've got no doubt that once Doug runs the numbers, New England's SRS rating will blow out every other team's since the merger.
Here's how the thirty-seven champs from 1970-2006 rank according to the SRS:
was1991 16.6chi1985 15.9gnb1996 15.3pit1975 14.2mia1973 13.2nwe2004 12.8sfo1984 12.7pit1979 11.9ram1999 11.9sfo1994 11.6mia1972 11.0den1997 10.7sfo1989 10.7dal1992 9.9dal1971 9.9dal1995 9.7dal1993 9.6nyg1986 9.0den1998 8.9tam2002 8.8rai1976 8.5pit1978 8.2rav2000 8.0dal1977 7.8pit2005 7.8nyg1990 7.7was1982 7.4nwe2003 6.9pit1974 6.8rai1983 6.8sfo1981 6.2clt2006 5.9sfo1988 4.8nwe2001 4.3rai1980 4.2was1987 3.7clt1970 0.4The 2007 Giants will probably rank 2nd to last, or at best, third to last according to the SRS. You might wonder why the '70 Colts rate so poorly on this list; after all, Baltimore ranked 17th in winning percentage, 35th in Pythagorean record and 37th in differential. Well, the '70 Colts had the third easiest schedule of any team from 1970-2006, behind only the '70 Dolphins and the '99 Rams. That team had Unitas and won its three post season games by 30 points, but it certainly belongs in the discussion of the worst SB champion ever.The '87 Skins ranked in the bottom ten in record, differential and Pythagorean record, and rank in the bottom three in SRS rating. If anything, those states are inflated by Washington's 3-0 record and +39 points differential in the three strike games. Washington was fortunate to avoid an excellent 49ers team in the playoffs, and Doug Williams and Jay Schroeder completed just 210 of 410 passes. This was a team with some good stars in their prime (Darrell Green, Gary Clark, Dexter Manley and Charles Mann), but was not a very deep team and won just two-thirds of its games played with non-strike players.
I think the '70 Colts, '80 Raiders, '87 Redskins, '01 Patriots and '07 Giants probably deserve their own subgroup as the five worst Super Bowl Champions of all time. The '88 49ers and '06 Colts might be close to them, but having two of the greatest QBs of all time eliminates them from this category (and no, I'm not being inconsistent; Unitas was in his last year as a starter for the Colts, and Brady was in his first year as a starter for the Pats). I'm trying not to be a Giants hater here, but I don't see how to objectively put this team among the 37 best Super Bowl winners.
I know the Giants of the playoffs were not the Giants of the regular season. New York went 0-4 against Dallas, Green Bay and New England in the regular season, losing by 46 points despite playing three of those games at home; in the playoffs, Big Blue went 3-0 against those opponents. But all Super Bowl Champions played well in the playoffs, right? That's why they went undefeated in the post-season. And fair or not, New York won its playoff games by just 20 points. This was not a dominating post-season by any stretch of the imagination, although I know they three of the four best teams in the league this year. But the thing is, most Super Bowl champions beat the best couple of teams in the league. Here's how the 42 Super Bowl winners rank in terms of margin of victory per game in the playoffs:
sfo1989 3 100 33.3nyg1986 3 82 27.3chi1985 3 81 27.0rai1983 3 73 24.3dal1992 3 69 23.0tam2002 3 69 23.0dal1977 3 64 21.3den1998 3 63 21.0sfo1994 3 62 20.7was1991 3 61 20.3sfo1984 3 56 18.7pit1978 3 56 18.7rav2000 4 72 18.0sfo1988 3 54 18.0mia1973 3 52 17.3gnb1996 3 52 17.3gnb1966 2 32 16.0was1982 4 62 15.5pit1979 3 46 15.3gnb1967 3 44 14.7dal1993 3 44 14.7was1987 3 43 14.3dal1971 3 40 13.3dal1995 3 40 13.3pit1974 3 39 13.0rai1976 3 38 12.7rai1980 4 46 11.5nwe2004 3 34 11.3pit2005 4 45 11.3kan1969 3 33 11.0nyg1990 3 31 10.3clt1970 3 30 10.0clt2006 4 40 10.0den1997 4 39 9.8pit1975 3 28 9.3ram1999 3 24 8.0sfo1981 3 20 6.7nyj1968 2 13 6.5mia1972 3 17 5.7nwe2003 3 16 5.3nyg2007 4 20 5.0nwe2001 3 13 4.3The Giants don't look very good here, and the '72 Dolphins poor showing is one of the larger reasons Miami isn't unanimously (or even generally) considered the best team of all time. The '83 Raiders escape the title of "bad Super Bowl Champion" because of the dominant post-season run, even if Los Angeles has less than impressive peripherals. The '89 49ers are often in the conversation for best team ever, and the dominant playoff performance is a good reason why.The '01 Pats rank at the bottom of the list, and arguably their wins were even less impressive than the margin of victory shows. But New England was probably a better regular season team than the Giants, and beat some excellent playoff teams. I think it's too close to call definitively who was the worst Super Bowl champion of all time: the Colts, Redskins, Raiders, Giants and Pats are all in the mix. But if I had to choose one, I'd go with the Giants. New England, for all the easy knocks against them in 2001, did end up going 11-3 with Brady at the helm, and I'm willing to give them a slight pass for the two "Bledsoe" games.
One final pro-Giants note: I've often heard the '90 Giants called the worst Super Bowl champion ever. That seems really silly, based on this post. I understand that Giants team ranked 15th in the league in points scored, and beat two teams that might have been considered the best ever had they won the Super Bowl. The '90 49ers were gunning for the three-peat, and had started the season 10-0. The Bills were 13-2 before losing a meaningless week 17 game, led the league in points scored, and then scored 95 points in its first two playoff games. Buffalo had nine pro bowlers and a fun offense. Maybe those wins created some resentment for the '90 Giants. But New York ranked tied for 18th best record, and while it ranked 31st in differential, it was 26th in the more telling Pythagorean record statistic. Further, New York didn't even rank in the bottom ten according to SRS, and deserves some credit for beating two very good playoff teams. Those '90 Giants are probably in the bottom half of Super Bowl winners, but definitely aren't in the running for worst ever Super Bowl champ.
I put the five teams from the article, along with the two AFL teams (who might be overrated when looking just at their raw regular season numbers), and an other. Please vote.
Some nutjob writer thinks this Giants team might be the worst Super Bowl champion ever:
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=479
I was rooting strongly for the Giants in this past Super Bowl and was very impressed with New York's victory. I also know that being considered the worst super bowl champion ever is like being the least impressive gold medalist: all deserve credit and praise for achieving such an incredible feat. Winning on the field is what counts, and who really cares what I have to say, anyway?
However, I was curious to see where New York ranked relative to other champions. Here's a list of all 42 Super Bowl Champions, sorted by record:
mia1972 14-0-0 1.000chi1985 15-1-0 0.938sfo1984 15-1-0 0.938rai1976 13-1-0 0.929was1982 8-1-0 0.889was1991 14-2-0 0.875den1998 14-2-0 0.875sfo1989 14-2-0 0.875nwe2004 14-2-0 0.875pit1978 14-2-0 0.875nyg1986 14-2-0 0.875nwe2003 14-2-0 0.875pit1975 12-2-0 0.857mia1973 12-2-0 0.857gnb1966 12-2-0 0.857dal1977 12-2-0 0.857clt1970 11-2-1 0.821ram1999 13-3-0 0.813gnb1996 13-3-0 0.813sfo1994 13-3-0 0.813dal1992 13-3-0 0.813nyg1990 13-3-0 0.813sfo1981 13-3-0 0.813dal1971 11-3-0 0.786kan1969 11-3-0 0.786nyj1968 11-3-0 0.786den1997 12-4-0 0.750rav2000 12-4-0 0.750pit1979 12-4-0 0.750tam2002 12-4-0 0.750dal1993 12-4-0 0.750dal1995 12-4-0 0.750pit1974 10-3-1 0.750rai1983 12-4-0 0.750clt2006 12-4-0 0.750was1987 11-4-0 0.733pit2005 11-5-0 0.688nwe2001 11-5-0 0.688rai1980 11-5-0 0.688gnb1967 9-4-1 0.679sfo1988 10-6-0 0.625nyg2007 10-6-0 0.625The next table shows each team's regular season points scored, points allowed, points differential, and differential per game for each team.
Code:
ram1999 526 242 284 17.8was1991 485 224 261 16.3chi1985 456 198 258 16.1sfo1984 475 227 248 15.5gnb1996 456 210 246 15.4mia1972 385 171 214 15.3pit1975 373 162 211 15.1mia1973 343 150 193 13.8dal1971 406 222 184 13.1sfo1994 505 296 209 13.1kan1969 359 177 182 13.0gnb1966 335 163 172 12.3den1998 501 309 192 12.0sfo1989 442 253 189 11.8den1997 472 287 185 11.6nwe2004 437 260 177 11.1rav2000 333 165 168 10.5dal1992 409 243 166 10.4pit1978 356 195 161 10.1nyj1968 419 280 139 9.9pit1979 416 262 154 9.6dal1977 345 212 133 9.5tam2002 346 196 150 9.4dal1993 376 229 147 9.2dal1995 435 291 144 9.0gnb1967 332 209 123 8.8nyg1986 371 236 135 8.4pit1974 305 189 116 8.3pit2005 389 258 131 8.2rai1976 350 237 113 8.1nyg1990 335 211 124 7.8was1982 190 128 62 6.9nwe2003 348 238 110 6.9sfo1981 357 250 107 6.7rai1983 442 338 104 6.5was1987 379 285 94 6.3clt1970 321 234 87 6.2nwe2001 371 272 99 6.2sfo1988 369 294 75 4.7clt2006 427 360 67 4.2rai1980 364 306 58 3.6nyg2007 373 351 22 1.4chi1985 0.878pit1975 0.878mia1973 0.877mia1972 0.873ram1999 0.863gnb1996 0.863was1991 0.862sfo1984 0.852gnb1966 0.846kan1969 0.842rav2000 0.841dal1971 0.807pit1978 0.806tam2002 0.794sfo1989 0.790sfo1994 0.780dal1992 0.775nwe2004 0.774den1997 0.765dal1993 0.764dal1977 0.760den1998 0.759pit1974 0.757gnb1967 0.750pit1979 0.749nyg1990 0.749nyg1986 0.745pit2005 0.726nyj1968 0.722dal1995 0.722was1982 0.718rai1976 0.716nwe2003 0.711sfo1981 0.699clt1970 0.679nwe2001 0.676was1987 0.663rai1983 0.654sfo1988 0.631rai1980 0.601clt2006 0.600nyg2007 0.536Note: by this method, the last two Super Bowl champions were the worst two of all time. The two teams are the only SB champs to allow 350 points in a season. The Giants, of course, have been at the bottom of each list presented here so far. Does that mean New York's the worst SB Champ ever?To the extent that such a consensus exists, I'd posit that most have regarded the 2001 Patriots as the worst SB champion of all time. The 2006 Colts (last before this year's Giants in Pythagorean record) and the '88 49ers (last in actual record, tied with this year's Giants) were led by Manning and Montana, and both players were in their primes. Justifiable or not, that will exclude them from consideration for a majority of commentators. The '67 Packers weren't a very good team record-wide, but were middle of the pack in points differential and Pythagorean record, and were still The Lombardi Packers.
The '80 Raiders are probably the Pats best competitor for the title. The Silver and Black ranked last among the first 41 Super Bowl winners in points differential, third to last in record, and third to last in Pythagorean record. QB Jim Plunkett was never very good, and 1980 wasn't a particularly good year for him, either. Tom Flores won two Super Bowls but few consider him an elite coach, and his sub-.300 winning percentage in Seattle earns him no bonus points. Mark van Eeghen was nothing special (Antowain Smith-like?), and the Raiders ranked in the bottom half of the league in yards gained.
The '01 Patriots? New England ranked 19th in yards gained and 24th in yards allowed. Brady, Belichick, Light and Seymour were all unknowns at this point, and none of them besides Belichick were at an elite level in 2001. Whereas the '80 Raiders won four playoff games by 46 points, New England won its three playoff games by just thirteen points. The Pats beat better post-season opponents, but also won it particularly fluky ways. I think it's a pretty close fight between these two teams for the worst SB Champion ever. New England had four Pro Bowlers, Oakland six. According to the SRS, the Raiders have a +4.2 rating thanks to a slightly harder than average schedule, and the Patriots have a +4.3 rating thanks to a relatively easy schedule. (For first time readers of the blog, you can learn about the SRS here.) This one's a toss up, but do the Giants clearly steal the show?
New York had just one Pro Bowler. While Doug hasn't run the official 2007 SRS ratings yet, my less refined method (that usually comes within a decimal point or two) gives them a +3.3, thanks to having one of the ten hardest schedules in the league. That rating, of course, isn't very good for a Super Bowl champion. The Patriots, according to my preliminary system, rate at +20.1, which would be the highest ever by a wide margin. I've got no doubt that once Doug runs the numbers, New England's SRS rating will blow out every other team's since the merger.
Here's how the thirty-seven champs from 1970-2006 rank according to the SRS:
was1991 16.6chi1985 15.9gnb1996 15.3pit1975 14.2mia1973 13.2nwe2004 12.8sfo1984 12.7pit1979 11.9ram1999 11.9sfo1994 11.6mia1972 11.0den1997 10.7sfo1989 10.7dal1992 9.9dal1971 9.9dal1995 9.7dal1993 9.6nyg1986 9.0den1998 8.9tam2002 8.8rai1976 8.5pit1978 8.2rav2000 8.0dal1977 7.8pit2005 7.8nyg1990 7.7was1982 7.4nwe2003 6.9pit1974 6.8rai1983 6.8sfo1981 6.2clt2006 5.9sfo1988 4.8nwe2001 4.3rai1980 4.2was1987 3.7clt1970 0.4The 2007 Giants will probably rank 2nd to last, or at best, third to last according to the SRS. You might wonder why the '70 Colts rate so poorly on this list; after all, Baltimore ranked 17th in winning percentage, 35th in Pythagorean record and 37th in differential. Well, the '70 Colts had the third easiest schedule of any team from 1970-2006, behind only the '70 Dolphins and the '99 Rams. That team had Unitas and won its three post season games by 30 points, but it certainly belongs in the discussion of the worst SB champion ever.The '87 Skins ranked in the bottom ten in record, differential and Pythagorean record, and rank in the bottom three in SRS rating. If anything, those states are inflated by Washington's 3-0 record and +39 points differential in the three strike games. Washington was fortunate to avoid an excellent 49ers team in the playoffs, and Doug Williams and Jay Schroeder completed just 210 of 410 passes. This was a team with some good stars in their prime (Darrell Green, Gary Clark, Dexter Manley and Charles Mann), but was not a very deep team and won just two-thirds of its games played with non-strike players.
I think the '70 Colts, '80 Raiders, '87 Redskins, '01 Patriots and '07 Giants probably deserve their own subgroup as the five worst Super Bowl Champions of all time. The '88 49ers and '06 Colts might be close to them, but having two of the greatest QBs of all time eliminates them from this category (and no, I'm not being inconsistent; Unitas was in his last year as a starter for the Colts, and Brady was in his first year as a starter for the Pats). I'm trying not to be a Giants hater here, but I don't see how to objectively put this team among the 37 best Super Bowl winners.
I know the Giants of the playoffs were not the Giants of the regular season. New York went 0-4 against Dallas, Green Bay and New England in the regular season, losing by 46 points despite playing three of those games at home; in the playoffs, Big Blue went 3-0 against those opponents. But all Super Bowl Champions played well in the playoffs, right? That's why they went undefeated in the post-season. And fair or not, New York won its playoff games by just 20 points. This was not a dominating post-season by any stretch of the imagination, although I know they three of the four best teams in the league this year. But the thing is, most Super Bowl champions beat the best couple of teams in the league. Here's how the 42 Super Bowl winners rank in terms of margin of victory per game in the playoffs:
sfo1989 3 100 33.3nyg1986 3 82 27.3chi1985 3 81 27.0rai1983 3 73 24.3dal1992 3 69 23.0tam2002 3 69 23.0dal1977 3 64 21.3den1998 3 63 21.0sfo1994 3 62 20.7was1991 3 61 20.3sfo1984 3 56 18.7pit1978 3 56 18.7rav2000 4 72 18.0sfo1988 3 54 18.0mia1973 3 52 17.3gnb1996 3 52 17.3gnb1966 2 32 16.0was1982 4 62 15.5pit1979 3 46 15.3gnb1967 3 44 14.7dal1993 3 44 14.7was1987 3 43 14.3dal1971 3 40 13.3dal1995 3 40 13.3pit1974 3 39 13.0rai1976 3 38 12.7rai1980 4 46 11.5nwe2004 3 34 11.3pit2005 4 45 11.3kan1969 3 33 11.0nyg1990 3 31 10.3clt1970 3 30 10.0clt2006 4 40 10.0den1997 4 39 9.8pit1975 3 28 9.3ram1999 3 24 8.0sfo1981 3 20 6.7nyj1968 2 13 6.5mia1972 3 17 5.7nwe2003 3 16 5.3nyg2007 4 20 5.0nwe2001 3 13 4.3The Giants don't look very good here, and the '72 Dolphins poor showing is one of the larger reasons Miami isn't unanimously (or even generally) considered the best team of all time. The '83 Raiders escape the title of "bad Super Bowl Champion" because of the dominant post-season run, even if Los Angeles has less than impressive peripherals. The '89 49ers are often in the conversation for best team ever, and the dominant playoff performance is a good reason why.The '01 Pats rank at the bottom of the list, and arguably their wins were even less impressive than the margin of victory shows. But New England was probably a better regular season team than the Giants, and beat some excellent playoff teams. I think it's too close to call definitively who was the worst Super Bowl champion of all time: the Colts, Redskins, Raiders, Giants and Pats are all in the mix. But if I had to choose one, I'd go with the Giants. New England, for all the easy knocks against them in 2001, did end up going 11-3 with Brady at the helm, and I'm willing to give them a slight pass for the two "Bledsoe" games.
One final pro-Giants note: I've often heard the '90 Giants called the worst Super Bowl champion ever. That seems really silly, based on this post. I understand that Giants team ranked 15th in the league in points scored, and beat two teams that might have been considered the best ever had they won the Super Bowl. The '90 49ers were gunning for the three-peat, and had started the season 10-0. The Bills were 13-2 before losing a meaningless week 17 game, led the league in points scored, and then scored 95 points in its first two playoff games. Buffalo had nine pro bowlers and a fun offense. Maybe those wins created some resentment for the '90 Giants. But New York ranked tied for 18th best record, and while it ranked 31st in differential, it was 26th in the more telling Pythagorean record statistic. Further, New York didn't even rank in the bottom ten according to SRS, and deserves some credit for beating two very good playoff teams. Those '90 Giants are probably in the bottom half of Super Bowl winners, but definitely aren't in the running for worst ever Super Bowl champ.
Last edited by a moderator:
Before that season, I believe it was Pro Football Weekly that declared that franchise the worst in the NFL...... After that Super Bowl, the voting for worst SB Champ ever was a run away with this team...They had a horseshoe in their collective asses that season.Yeah, they grew up to be a great team and franchise but, this win was before it's time.
* Was 14-3 with Brady at QB* Scored 99 more points than they allowed* Didn't allow more than 17 points in a playoff gameThe '70 Colts?* Lost one of their last 15 games* Allowed 10 PPG in the playoffs* QB'ed by arguably the greatest QB of all time, not by arguably the greatest QB's of all time brother 
