Worst team to ever Appear in a Superbowl (1 Viewer)

[stbugs]

Wouldn't that support the theory, i.e. when Marino had a top 10 defense, he went to the Super Bowl? Not sure how the Dolphins defense ranking #7 the year that they went to the Super Bowl says anything other than when Marino had a solid defense, he was able to go to the Super Bowl.

No, it proves that one time was an anomaly for Marino to get to a Super Bowl at all. A common misconception regarding Marino's failure to win a SuperBowl is that he never had a good defense. This is a flawed argument. Marino never won the Super Bowl despite having many Top 10 defenses.Year PA

1998 #1

1995 #10

1990 #4

1983 #1

OK, well I am not an apologist, but just because you made me look.1983 - They lost the first playoff game. Since this was Marino's rookie year, I think you have to cut him some slack.

1984 - Lost in the Super Bowl. Defense gave up 38 points.

1990 - Lost to Buffalo, who lost by 1 to the Giants in the Super Bowl. Defense gave up 44 points.

1995 - Lost to Buffalo. Defense gave up 37 points. Marino's last pro bowl at age 34. Start of the end.

1998 - Lost to Super Bowl champs Denver. Defense gave up 38 points. Marino is 37 in his second to last year.

So, outside of the rookie year, the Dolphins defense gave up and average of 39 points per game in the playoff losses. I am not sure you are making a real good argument that Marino's defense gave him plenty of support in the playoff losses.

Look at Peyton this year, his defense definitely stepped it up and helped him win a Super Bowl. Personally, I think Manning and Marino are great QBs, period, but to win Super Bowls, you need a combination of playing well and having the rest of the team play well. You also need a little luck. Look at Tom Brady, without plenty of defensive help and luck (tuck, Vinatieri clutchness), he might not have 3 Super Bowl rings.

 

[Jous]

I have absolutely no idea what the 1998 Falcons are doing on this list. They're certainly one of the best Super Bowl losing teams of all time, not the worst.

I'll defend this choice. I remember in the week leading up to thjis game thinking that the Falcons were a complete fluke and had no business playing in the championship. Look at the two or three years leading up to that season and the two or three years following that season and see if it doesn't appear that they were a huge fluke.

What you do before a great season and after a great season doesn't change the fact that you were great for one year. I don't think the Falcons belong on this list. People underrate them just because the 15-1 Vikings were in the NFC that year. If the Vikings weren'r quite as good as they were, the Falcons would have been overwhelming favorites to reach the Super Bowl in 1998.

 

[Workhorse]

The omission of the '96 Patriots is also surprising. Even Patriots fans acknolwedge that was a bad team.

I do not acknowledge this. That offense was pretty sick. They were not as good as the Packers, but had JUST scored via a Kieth Buyers TD I believe to get back into the game when the Packers returned the next kickoff for a TD. Anyway, not as good as those Packers, but a "bad team"? I don't think so.

Disagree. That Pats team was very lucky to even make it to the Super Bowl in 96. They were AWFUL against the pass -- Gave up over 4,000 yards passing that year. The offensive line was a disaster for the most part, too.

 

[AB in DC]

What you do before a great season and after a great season doesn't change the fact that you were great for one year. I don't think the Falcons belong on this list. People underrate them just because the 15-1 Vikings were in the NFC that year. If the Vikings weren'r quite as good as they were, the Falcons would have been overwhelming favorites to reach the Super Bowl in 1998.

And yet it shows just how bad the NFC was that year if two good-but-not-great teams could finish 15-1 and 14-2.

 

[AB in DC]

Disagree. That Pats team was very lucky to even make it to the Super Bowl in 96. They were AWFUL against the pass -- Gave up over 4,000 yards passing that year. The offensive line was a disaster for the most part, too.

80% of the offensive line was not a disaster. Just Max Lane.

 

[Workhorse]

Disagree. That Pats team was very lucky to even make it to the Super Bowl in 96. They were AWFUL against the pass -- Gave up over 4,000 yards passing that year. The offensive line was a disaster for the most part, too.

80% of the offensive line was not a disaster. Just Max Lane.

William Roberts? Bob Kratch? C'mon. That line was dreadful.

 

[Bull Dozier]

I did a very quick statistical analysis and eliminated a number of these teams based on their rankings. I think any team that was top ten in scoring and points allowed shouldn't even be considered (bears were #2 and #3 respectively this year). That excludes the following (scoring rank and points allowed rank):

'84 Dolphins (1-7)

Oh crap. Now the flood gates are open for Marino apologists to explain why the Dolphins defense wasn't any good despite that ranking.

Wouldn't that support the theory, i.e. when Marino had a top 10 defense, he went to the Super Bowl? Not sure how the Dolphins defense ranking #7 the year that they went to the Super Bowl says anything other than when Marino had a solid defense, he was able to go to the Super Bowl.

Miami had the #1 scoring D, and #8 in yardage in '83. They had the #4 scoring D and #8 D in yardage in '90. They had the #10 yardage D in '92 (#12 in points). In '95 they were #10 in points allowed (#14 in yardage). In '98, they were #1 in points allowed and #3 in yardage. In '99 they were #4 in yardage (#19 in points). Depending on what your criteria of ranking for D is, Miami had a top ten D more than once with Marino, but that didn't translate into more Superbowls.

 

[SmoovySmoov]

I voted 1994 Chargers. I don't think the 2006 Bears belong on the list. Offense not so good, but not that bad nonetheless (decent OL, decent RBs, decent WRs, decent TE). I would love to see the opposite poll - worst SB winner. 2005 Steelers would be very high on my list, if not on top.

Yea, i think winning 30 games in two years is the sign of a terrible team.

But the Bears that won 26 in the past two seasons are? Great logic you have there.

 

[switz]

The 1992 Bills maybe and certainly a case could be made for the 93 Bills, but the 90 and 91 Bills were excellent SB losers.

I was surprised to see the Bills on the list in the first place, even more surprising an AFC East guy would support that conclusion. The Bills were cream of the crop in the AFC, excellent offense, very solid defense, i the toughest division in the league. Not sure why they would belong on this list at all.In '92 the only close game was their WC game against Hou, they absolutely crushed their other opponents, until the SB. And that team had I think 11 Pro Bowl players.The '93 team was 12-4, and had 8 or 9 Pro Bowl players. They had a terible defense that year though.It's not often a team faces an opponent that just has them figured out, like the Cowboys had the Bills.

 

[switz]

I did a very quick statistical analysis and eliminated a number of these teams based on their rankings. I think any team that was top ten in scoring and points allowed shouldn't even be considered (bears were #2 and #3 respectively this year). That excludes the following (scoring rank and points allowed rank):

'84 Dolphins (1-7)

Oh crap. Now the flood gates are open for Marino apologists to explain why the Dolphins defense wasn't any good despite that ranking.

Wouldn't that support the theory, i.e. when Marino had a top 10 defense, he went to the Super Bowl? Not sure how the Dolphins defense ranking #7 the year that they went to the Super Bowl says anything other than when Marino had a solid defense, he was able to go to the Super Bowl.

Miami had the #1 scoring D, and #8 in yardage in '83. They had the #4 scoring D and #8 D in yardage in '90. They had the #10 yardage D in '92 (#12 in points). In '95 they were #10 in points allowed (#14 in yardage). In '98, they were #1 in points allowed and #3 in yardage. In '99 they were #4 in yardage (#19 in points). Depending on what your criteria of ranking for D is, Miami had a top ten D more than once with Marino, but that didn't translate into more Superbowls.

Don't get marinolives13 in here. Marino is the best QB to ever walk this earth, and his teams were terrible, not his fault.

 

[switz]

In this deeply flawed non-scientific study, I go with the Titans.

I voted Titans as well... as they were clearly, well, the WEAKEST team

 

[QuizGuy66]

Okay the Neil O'Donnell Steelers of '95 are not on this list (winning a division with 5 below .500 teams in their division and 2 regular season wins against playoff teams and 3 wins against teams with .500+ records)

But the '88 Bengals with a better record, who won a division with 3 playoffs teams in it and had 4 regular season wins over playoff teams and 5 wins against .500+ teams are?

Shoulda just listed them going backwards from 2006 on and let the voters decide.

Seriously Fla\/\/ed

-QG

 

[H.K.]

OK, well I am not an apologist, but just because you made me look.

1983 - They lost the first playoff game. Since this was Marino's rookie year, I think you have to cut him some slack. 2 Int's

1984 - Lost in the Super Bowl. Defense gave up 38 points. 2 Int's, offense scores 16 points

1990 - Lost to Buffalo, who lost by 1 to the Giants in the Super Bowl. Defense gave up 44 points. 2 Int's

1995 - Lost to Buffalo. Defense gave up 37 points. Marino's last pro bowl at age 34. Start of the end. 3 Ints, Jim Kelly opposing QB, same age btw

1998 - Lost to Super Bowl champs Denver. Defense gave up 38 points. Marino is 37 in his second to last year. 3 Ints, scored 3 points, John Elway opposing QB, drafted same year as Marino, age not a factor for him

So, outside of the rookie year, the Dolphins defense gave up and average of 39 points per game in the playoff losses. I am not sure you are making a real good argument that Marino's defense gave him plenty of support in the playoff losses.

Look closer, in 5 games he totaled 12 Interceptions, with a minimum of two in each loss. Kind of hard to play good defense when your QB keeps putting your back up against the wall.

 

[stbugs]

OK, well I am not an apologist, but just because you made me look.

1983 - They lost the first playoff game. Since this was Marino's rookie year, I think you have to cut him some slack. 2 Int's

1984 - Lost in the Super Bowl. Defense gave up 38 points. 2 Int's, offense scores 16 points

1990 - Lost to Buffalo, who lost by 1 to the Giants in the Super Bowl. Defense gave up 44 points. 2 Int's

1995 - Lost to Buffalo. Defense gave up 37 points. Marino's last pro bowl at age 34. Start of the end. 3 Ints, Jim Kelly opposing QB, same age btw

1998 - Lost to Super Bowl champs Denver. Defense gave up 38 points. Marino is 37 in his second to last year. 3 Ints, scored 3 points, John Elway opposing QB, drafted same year as Marino, age not a factor for him

So, outside of the rookie year, the Dolphins defense gave up and average of 39 points per game in the playoff losses. I am not sure you are making a real good argument that Marino's defense gave him plenty of support in the playoff losses.

Look closer, in 5 games he totaled 12 Interceptions, with a minimum of two in each loss. Kind of hard to play good defense when your QB keeps putting your back up against the wall.

Honestly not trying to argue here, I just figured I would take a look and it isn't hard to imagine 12 INTs in 5 games, when the defense gives up 39 points a game. Look at Grossman two days ago, he had 2 INTs late in the game (mainly because he isn't good) because they were down late.Maybe that isn't the case here, but hard to fault a QB who played against playoff caliber teams, including some great teams (1990 Buffalo and 1998 Denver), when your defense gives up basically 40 points a game.

Again, just as always, people posting seem to be on one side of the fence or another, I'm not. I just went to the pro football reference site and wanted to see what happened in the playoffs. I can't imagine too many QBs that could overcome 4 playoff losses where the defense gives up 39 points per game.

 

[switz]

Again, just as always, people posting seem to be on one side of the fence or another, I'm not. I just went to the pro football reference site and wanted to see what happened in the playoffs. I can't imagine too many QBs that could overcome 4 playoff losses where the defense gives up 39 points per game.

Actually, I would say with the INTs that the offense, especially QB, is the one giving up some of those points.

 

[PsychoMan]

Again, just as always, people posting seem to be on one side of the fence or another, I'm not. I just went to the pro football reference site and wanted to see what happened in the playoffs. I can't imagine too many QBs that could overcome 4 playoff losses where the defense gives up 39 points per game.

Actually, I would say with the INTs that the offense, especially QB, is the one giving up some of those points.

A couple turnovers a game is somewhat normal for a team ... 2 or 3 ints by a QB doesn't automatically equal 39 points for the other team.

 

[H.K.]

Honestly not trying to argue here, I just figured I would take a look and it isn't hard to imagine 12 INTs in 5 games, when the defense gives up 39 points a game. Look at Grossman two days ago, he had 2 INTs late in the game (mainly because he isn't good) because they were down late.Maybe that isn't the case here, but hard to fault a QB who played against playoff caliber teams, including some great teams (1990 Buffalo and 1998 Denver), when your defense gives up basically 40 points a game.Again, just as always, people posting seem to be on one side of the fence or another, I'm not. I just went to the pro football reference site and wanted to see what happened in the playoffs. I can't imagine too many QBs that could overcome 4 playoff losses where the defense gives up 39 points per game.

No problem, I tried to find the game logs to see when he threw the Int's and see how many times they resulted in points. However, it works both ways, too. Marino could throw 50 passes for 300 yards because he turned the ball over early and got his team in a hole, therefore he's in a position to get good stats in a losing effort.

 

[Despyzer]

Again, just as always, people posting seem to be on one side of the fence or another, I'm not. I just went to the pro football reference site and wanted to see what happened in the playoffs. I can't imagine too many QBs that could overcome 4 playoff losses where the defense gives up 39 points per game.

Actually, I would say with the INTs that the offense, especially QB, is the one giving up some of those points.

A couple turnovers a game is somewhat normal for a team ... 2 or 3 ints by a QB doesn't automatically equal 39 points for the other team.

And what else was Marino going to do? Hand off the ball to his RB? 2 or 3 INTs isn't shocking considering everyone on the field knew he had few other options.

 

[stbugs]

OK, well I am not an apologist, but just because you made me look.

1983 - They lost the first playoff game. Since this was Marino's rookie year, I think you have to cut him some slack. 2 Int's

1984 - Lost in the Super Bowl. Defense gave up 38 points. 2 Int's, offense scores 16 points

1990 - Lost to Buffalo, who lost by 1 to the Giants in the Super Bowl. Defense gave up 44 points. 2 Int's

1995 - Lost to Buffalo. Defense gave up 37 points. Marino's last pro bowl at age 34. Start of the end. 3 Ints, Jim Kelly opposing QB, same age btw

1998 - Lost to Super Bowl champs Denver. Defense gave up 38 points. Marino is 37 in his second to last year. 3 Ints, scored 3 points, John Elway opposing QB, drafted same year as Marino, age not a factor for him

So, outside of the rookie year, the Dolphins defense gave up and average of 39 points per game in the playoff losses. I am not sure you are making a real good argument that Marino's defense gave him plenty of support in the playoff losses.

Look closer, in 5 games he totaled 12 Interceptions, with a minimum of two in each loss. Kind of hard to play good defense when your QB keeps putting your back up against the wall.

Honestly not trying to argue here, I just figured I would take a look and it isn't hard to imagine 12 INTs in 5 games, when the defense gives up 39 points a game. Look at Grossman two days ago, he had 2 INTs late in the game (mainly because he isn't good) because they were down late.Maybe that isn't the case here, but hard to fault a QB who played against playoff caliber teams, including some great teams (1990 Buffalo and 1998 Denver), when your defense gives up basically 40 points a game.

Again, just as always, people posting seem to be on one side of the fence or another, I'm not. I just went to the pro football reference site and wanted to see what happened in the playoffs. I can't imagine too many QBs that could overcome 4 playoff losses where the defense gives up 39 points per game.

By the way just added it up and Marino also averaged 46 attempts per game in those five games and threw for about 300 yards per game and 8TDs. Take away the Denver game and he had 8 TDs and 9 INTs. Not great at all, but certainly not so bad that the defense should suck to the point of 37 points a game (the 39 before was minus his rookie year).I don't feel like digging up the game logs and I will pretty much stop arguing here, but it sure looks to me like he passed OK, but probably forced too many balls. That doesn't surprise me when he would have had to average scoring 37+ points per game just to win all 5 games.

Though I am not apologizing for him, I am sure his INTs certainly played a part in his team losing, please get real about the defenses he had. They certainly didn't do anywhere close to their part in those 5 playoff losses or are you saying that giving up 37 points a game is warranted if your QB those 4 more INTs than TDs over the span of 5 games?

OK, I am done. I don't want anyone to think that I am favoring Marino, but 37 points per game is atrocious for a supposedly good defense.

 

[H.K.]

Again, just as always, people posting seem to be on one side of the fence or another, I'm not. I just went to the pro football reference site and wanted to see what happened in the playoffs. I can't imagine too many QBs that could overcome 4 playoff losses where the defense gives up 39 points per game.

Actually, I would say with the INTs that the offense, especially QB, is the one giving up some of those points.

A couple turnovers a game is somewhat normal for a team ... 2 or 3 ints by a QB doesn't automatically equal 39 points for the other team.

The difference between giving up 24 and 39 points is probably 2-3 INT's.Also, 2-3 INT's means your offense didn't get any points on those drives, so they have fewer drives and TOP to make up the deficit.

Turnovers kill. Especially in the playoffs, because good teams usually capitalize....its what makes them good.

 

[Despyzer]

The difference between giving up 24 and 39 points is probably 2-3 INT's.

Meaning he would have had to have thrown 4 TDs and no INTs every game to win. Those are some realistic expectations.

 

[stbugs]

Honestly not trying to argue here, I just figured I would take a look and it isn't hard to imagine 12 INTs in 5 games, when the defense gives up 39 points a game. Look at Grossman two days ago, he had 2 INTs late in the game (mainly because he isn't good) because they were down late.Maybe that isn't the case here, but hard to fault a QB who played against playoff caliber teams, including some great teams (1990 Buffalo and 1998 Denver), when your defense gives up basically 40 points a game.Again, just as always, people posting seem to be on one side of the fence or another, I'm not. I just went to the pro football reference site and wanted to see what happened in the playoffs. I can't imagine too many QBs that could overcome 4 playoff losses where the defense gives up 39 points per game.

No problem, I tried to find the game logs to see when he threw the Int's and see how many times they resulted in points. However, it works both ways, too. Marino could throw 50 passes for 300 yards because he turned the ball over early and got his team in a hole, therefore he's in a position to get good stats in a losing effort.

Oh, I agree completely. It just shocked me how badly it appeared that the defense played. Fact is, aside from the Denver game, where they got beat by a much, much, much better team, he was only -1 in turnover ratio for the other 4 games.I think the problem for the Dolphins was probably that if Marino has an off game, the defense couldn't come through enough to compensate. If Marino was great, they built a lead and then the opponents offense was one-dimensional.Sure, Marino has to take some of the blame. He is their QB and if he has a bad game, they will lose.Let's say we take an assumption that all of Marino's INTs were horrible. Let's also say that, the opponent scored 6 TDs and 6 FGs. Even then, the defense was still giving up 25 another points per game. I think my assumptions are being kind to the defense as well because many of those 12 could have turned into no points.They lost to:1983 Seahawks (bad loss but only by 7, but Marino's rookie year)1984 49ers an awesome Super Bowl winner. Note that they also beat a better 1984 Seahawks in the playoffs 31-10@1990 Buffalo, a better team that probably should have won the Super Bowl@1995 Buffalo, a better team, but kind of an even mediocre matchup@1998 Denver an awesome Super Bowl winnerIf not for Scott Norwood, 3 of the 5 losses would have been to the team that won the Super Bowl and only 1 loss was at home. So basically Marino didn't step up and win the games, but he sure didn't get a lot of help.

 

[switz]

Again, just as always, people posting seem to be on one side of the fence or another, I'm not. I just went to the pro football reference site and wanted to see what happened in the playoffs. I can't imagine too many QBs that could overcome 4 playoff losses where the defense gives up 39 points per game.

Actually, I would say with the INTs that the offense, especially QB, is the one giving up some of those points.

A couple turnovers a game is somewhat normal for a team ... 2 or 3 ints by a QB doesn't automatically equal 39 points for the other team.

Depends on whether those INTs get retunred for TDs or not. Say even one does, that's at least 7 points the opponent doesn't score, and probably 3 the Dolphins do score. Even if the INTs aren't returned it's probably a 6 point swing in the other direction.Sure the defense let the opponent score as well, but they were likely tired from being on the field too much because of turnovers.

 

[Pat Patriot]

Very surprised to see the 1985 Pats leading the vote. They got crushed by possibly the BEST 1 year team of all time.

That Pats team had a GREAT offensive line. John Hannah, Pete Brock, Ron Wooten, Brian Holloway (overrated but still good), Steve Moore. They could pound ANY team (except the Bears).

They had a couple of "not quite good enough for the HOF" receivers in Fryar and Morgan. A good stable of backs; Craig James, Tony Collins, Mosi Tatupu and Robert Weathers.

Excellent group of defensive players; Andre Tippett, Steve Nelson, Julius Adams, Raymond Clayborn, Ronnie Lippett, Garin Veris, Johnny Rembert, Fred Marion, Roland James and Don Blackmon.

They lost earlier that year AT Chicago by 20-7. A respectable score against that Bears team. They lost 2 of their last 11 regular season games, 1 in OT to a Jets playoff team and by 3 at Miami.

They won their playoff games by an average of 13 points.

They were a very good team with a poor starting QB (Tony Eason) and their backup (Steve Grogan) had courage but was well past his prime.

I voted the 1994 Chargers.

 

[kevjones22]

2005 Stealers. How are the Seahawks on this list they were by far the best team in the league in 2005 and were flat out robbed in the Superbowl.

"by far the best team in the league"? If they played in the AFC, they may not have even made the playoffs......

3-1 v the AFC in 2005, and outplayed the AFC Champion in the superbowl.

 

[Despyzer]

Very surprised to see the 1985 Pats leading the vote. They got crushed by possibly the BEST 1 year team of all time.That Pats team had a GREAT offensive line. John Hannah, Pete Brock, Ron Wooten, Brian Holloway (overrated but still good), Steve Moore. They could pound ANY team (except the Bears).They had a couple of "not quite good enough for the HOF" receivers in Fryar and Morgan. A good stable of backs; Craig James, Tony Collins, Mosi Tatupu and Robert Weathers.Excellent group of defensive players; Andre Tippett, Steve Nelson, Julius Adams, Raymond Clayborn, Ronnie Lippett, Garin Veris, Johnny Rembert, Fred Marion, Roland James and Don Blackmon.They lost earlier that year AT Chicago by 20-7. A respectable score against that Bears team. They lost 2 of their last 11 regular season games, 1 in OT to a Jets playoff team and by 3 at Miami.They won their playoff games by an average of 13 points. They were a very good team with a poor starting QB (Tony Eason) and their backup (Steve Grogan) had courage but was well past his prime. I voted the 1994 Chargers.

(except for that last part)

 

[jetpack]

2005 Stealers. How are the Seahawks on this list they were by far the best team in the league in 2005 and were flat out robbed in the Superbowl.

"by far the best team in the league"? If they played in the AFC, they may not have even made the playoffs......

3-1 v the AFC in 2005, and outplayed the AFC Champion in the superbowl.

Well, to be fair, they only outplayed the Steelers for a quarter and a half. After that, the Steelers outplayed them. Check the stats.

 

[jurb26]

I really didn't even need to look at the options (though I did anyway ) to know I would pick the 94 Chargers. Though they beat my beloved Steelers en-route to the SB that year, I was never so certain at team would get pummeled in a SB as I was then.

 

[Jous]

2005 Stealers. How are the Seahawks on this list they were by far the best team in the league in 2005 and were flat out robbed in the Superbowl.

"by far the best team in the league"? If they played in the AFC, they may not have even made the playoffs......

3-1 v the AFC in 2005, and outplayed the AFC Champion in the superbowl.

You really do need to get over it, dude.

 

[Jous]

Very surprised to see the 1985 Pats leading the vote. They got crushed by possibly the BEST 1 year team of all time.That Pats team had a GREAT offensive line. John Hannah, Pete Brock, Ron Wooten, Brian Holloway (overrated but still good), Steve Moore. They could pound ANY team (except the Bears).They had a couple of "not quite good enough for the HOF" receivers in Fryar and Morgan. A good stable of backs; Craig James, Tony Collins, Mosi Tatupu and Robert Weathers.Excellent group of defensive players; Andre Tippett, Steve Nelson, Julius Adams, Raymond Clayborn, Ronnie Lippett, Garin Veris, Johnny Rembert, Fred Marion, Roland James and Don Blackmon.They lost earlier that year AT Chicago by 20-7. A respectable score against that Bears team. They lost 2 of their last 11 regular season games, 1 in OT to a Jets playoff team and by 3 at Miami.They won their playoff games by an average of 13 points. They were a very good team with a poor starting QB (Tony Eason) and their backup (Steve Grogan) had courage but was well past his prime. I voted the 1994 Chargers.

The reason people think the 85 Patriots were a terrible Super Bowl loser is for pretty much the same reason why people think the 2005 Steelers as one of worst Super Bowl winners. They both had to win 3 playoff games on the road, which says that neither team really established themselves in the regular season. And fair or not, people tend to think something like 3 road playoff wins a little fluky.It probably didn't help the Pats' cause that they were undressed vs the Bears either, fair or not.

 

[Slingblade]

Titans shouldn't even be on there.

 

[cantrell]

My vote went to those 80's Broncos teams.

* Denver's points and points against in the 3 Super Bowls - 40 points to 136 points

* Needed 2 Cleveland collapses to get to 2 of those Super Bowls.

* AFC was weak as a whole

* They had Top 10 defenses in 1987 and 1989 and gave up 42 and 55 in the Super Bowls.

* No running game.

 

[redman]

1982 Dolphins were probably the worst offense ever. Yes, even worse than this year's Bears team. Their defense was their strength, but honestly I always thought they were overrated there. I'd nominate them.

 

[BigRed]

The 2006 Bears are nothing more than a product of a weak schedule. I know that there is nothing that can be done about who they play, but the reason they were there was because of 2 games vs. their weak division opponents and their other schedule vs. the weak NFC west. All fo this allowed for an inflated record and home field advantage, which is the key to getting to any Super Bowl. With out HFA the Bears would have been nothing more than an afterthought.

Yeah the Saints sure sucked It is pointless including teams in the very recent past anyway, for reasons which should be obvious.

 

[redman]

The 2006 Bears are nothing more than a product of a weak schedule. I know that there is nothing that can be done about who they play, but the reason they were there was because of 2 games vs. their weak division opponents and their other schedule vs. the weak NFC west. All fo this allowed for an inflated record and home field advantage, which is the key to getting to any Super Bowl. With out HFA the Bears would have been nothing more than an afterthought.

Yeah the Saints sure sucked It is pointless including teams in the very recent past anyway, for reasons which should be obvious.

The Saints were a surprising but flawed team. They were the NFC version of the Colts during the regular season, with a huge offense and a porous defense. The difference was that the Colts' defense came up big in the playoffs, while the Saints' defense played more or less at the same level it had. The Bears got to the Super Bowl with the easiest schedule in the league in the NFC, the conference that has been chronically less competitive than the AFC in recent years. They had some strong attributes but overall they were an incomplete team, not unlike the 80's AFC teams when it was the NFC's turn to dominate.

 

[fred_1_15301]

2005 Stealers. How are the Seahawks on this list they were by far the best team in the league in 2005 and were flat out robbed in the Superbowl.

"by far the best team in the league"? If they played in the AFC, they may not have even made the playoffs......

3-1 v the AFC in 2005, and outplayed the AFC Champion in the superbowl.

They didn't outplay the Superbowl champions. They lost 21-10 because they weren't able to capitalize on boneheaded mistakes and they weren't able to stop a few big plays from the Steelers. The 2005 Seahawks have a right to be in this discussion. The 2005 Steelers do not.

 

[Jous]

2005 Stealers. How are the Seahawks on this list they were by far the best team in the league in 2005 and were flat out robbed in the Superbowl.

"by far the best team in the league"? If they played in the AFC, they may not have even made the playoffs......

3-1 v the AFC in 2005, and outplayed the AFC Champion in the superbowl.

They didn't outplay the Superbowl champions. They lost 21-10 because they weren't able to capitalize on boneheaded mistakes and they weren't able to stop a few big plays from the Steelers. The 2005 Seahawks have a right to be in this discussion. The 2005 Steelers do not.

And even if they had outplayed Pittsburgh, what does that even mean? It doens't guarantee anything. Teams "outplay" the other team and lose all the time. It's not about yards gainedor time of possession, it's about what you DO with those yards and possessions. Just look at the Rams vs Patriots in Super Bowl 36... the Rams badly outplayed New England, almost doubling their yardage total, and still managed to lose because they couldn't score

 

[Jous]

I'm trying to figure out how the 2003 Panthers have 0 votes. I mean, I really don't think they're the worst on this list... but 0 votes? They weren't that good, so I find it weird that only the 84 Dolphins and 03 Panthers have 0 votes. (and the fact that the 84 Fins are on here is an utter joke. They were possibly the best team to ever lose a Super Bowl)

 

[texasbirdfan]

I have absolutely no idea what the 1998 Falcons are doing on this list. They're certainly one of the best Super Bowl losing teams of all time, not the worst.

I'll defend this choice. I remember in the week leading up to thjis game thinking that the Falcons were a complete fluke and had no business playing in the championship. Look at the two or three years leading up to that season and the two or three years following that season and see if it doesn't appear that they were a huge fluke.

Falcons won the last 7 in 1997 Reeves first real year coaching them and had huge hits to the rosterdue to injury and Free Agency the next year or 2. Eugene Robinson goes to bed on time, Reeves gets some sleep and doesn't have Chandler throw ill advised twice into the fierce Miami wind and Ellway comes back another year possibly. Falcon bashers come in all forms- but they had a huge season in 1998..

 

[Iron Mike Tomczak]

To reply to some complaints I'll explain my reasoning:

Modern Era = 1985 - 2007. Thats just from my frame of reference, since alot of younger guys like myself know little of the 1970s teams so for the sake of arguement I left it to "recent" superbowls.

The groupings of the 80s Broncs and the 90s Bills is because the team that appeared multiple times in a few years and never won.

I left out decent performances in the superbowl, thats why the Pats and Steelers arent on, I also think I should have left the Titans off, since they played tough and were a good team that year.

The Falcons are on the list by request.

The Giants were probably my runner up as the worst SuperBowl team ever, they got absolutely demolished by Baltimore, it wasnt even fun to watch. I also tilt my cap to the 94 Chargers, they got killed as well.

The 2006 Bears deserve to be on the list, without a QB or much of an Offense, a Defense who did 20 percent of the scoring, I believe they deserve to be listed. Any NFC team from 2006 would have ended up on this list, its not neccessarily a knock to the Bears.

 

[phthalatemagic]

Why are the 2006 Bears being considered? The only difference between them and the 00 Ravens is that the Ravens got to play a horrible team in the SB, and the Bears got to play a great one.

 

[pizzatyme]

I did a very quick statistical analysis and eliminated a number of these teams based on their rankings. I think any team that was top ten in scoring and points allowed shouldn't even be considered (bears were #2 and #3 respectively this year). That excludes the following (scoring rank and points allowed rank):'84 Dolphins (1-7)'85 Patriots (10-6)'87 Broncos (4-7)'89 Broncos (9-1)'90 Bills (1-6)'93 Bills (7-5)'94 Chargers (5-9)'98 Falcons (4-4)'02 Raiders (2-6)'05 Seahawks (1-7)'06 Bears (2-3)That leaves a bunch of offensive teams with defensive shortcomings:'86 Broncos (6-15)'88 Bengals (1-17)'91 Bills (2-19)'92 Bills (3-14)'99 Titans (7-15)and a couple of defensive teams with weak offenses:'00 Giants (15-5)'03 Panthers (15-10)Personally, I'd further eliminate the Denver and Buffalo teams, just because of what they respectively did over 4 year periods of time (3 SB's for the Broncos, 4 for the Bills).I'm also eliminating the '88 Bengals, and their #1 scoring offense.That leaves the Titans, Giants, and Panthers. The Panthers had a multi-faceted offense with Delhomme throwing to Smith, and Davis getting 1400+ yards, so I'd take them over the Giants who look similar on paper.The Titans were supposedly a better team than the Giants offensively, but Kevin Dyson as a leading receiver does not impress. The Giants had the #5 scoring defense, had a QB with 3600+ yards, and a 1,000 yard receiver, neither of which the Titans had. Barber and Dayne outgained Eddie George as well.In this deeply flawed non-scientific study, I go with the Titans.

What he said!

 

[QuizGuy66]

To reply to some complaints I'll explain my reasoning:I left out decent performances in the superbowl, thats why the Pats and Steelers arent on, I also think I should have left the Titans off, since they played tough and were a good team that year.

Let's 20-16 loss in the Super Bowl with 34 seconds left against a team that would win 55-10 the next year. I totally see why the Bengals are there

 

[switz]

Titans shouldn't even be on there.

LOL! I voted for them. The fact that they've received a number of votes indicates they SHOULD be on there. They never even should have made the Super Bowl were it not for a fluke (and lucky) play.

 

[Hamstring]

Like I said. #1 seeds should be excluded. That's absurd that a 6 seed loser one year is better than a 1 seed loser. I don't care what parameters there are.