What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Worst teams in Super Bowl history (1 Viewer)

Portis 26

Madden Freak
It offends my sense of natural justice that some horrible teams have made the Super Bowl. OK, not horrible. Just very, very average. The Super Bowl should feature two incredibly talented teams. It's an offense against nature when one of them is crummy. Such as:XII: Dallas 27, Denver 10 - Low-grade Denver teamXVII: Washington 27, Miami 17 - What was the point of this Miami team?XXIX: San Francisco 49, San Diego 26 - Very pedestrian Chargers teamXXXIII: Denver 34, Atlanta 19 - Chris Chandler in the Super Bowl?XXXV: Baltimore 34, N.Y. Giants 7 - Painful to watchWhich teams do you think did not belong there? Note I haven't included those Bills and Broncos teams of the 90s/80s that lost 7 Super Bowls. At least those had some great players - or at least great QBs in Kelly and Elway - and you felt like they belonged there. I'm talking about, what the heck are they doing here teams?

 
L. A. Rams in SB XIV come immediately to mind. 9-7 regular season. Worst NFC Championship game ever was Rams 9-0 win at Tampa Bay.Patriots in SB XX are arguable. The Bears were on an incredible roll and would have likely made any AFC team that year look like they didn't belong, but it would have been a more interesting game if the Dolphins had made it. The Dolphins had beaten them only 6 or 7 weeks earlier.

 
You do have to take how good Chicago was into consideration, but when you lose by 36 points I think you're in the discussion. Also, the Rams were actually leading that game 19-17, so I think they deserve some credit.

 
:eek: How is Atlanta in 1998 one of the worst teams ever? 14-2 in a division with the 12-4 49ers. Then they go into the playoffs and beat those 49ers and the 15-1 Vikes. Yes, I know they should have lost that game but to say a team that lost only 2 games before the SB on a list of worst ever is horrible. They didn't play a cake division, the 9ers were still very good.
 
How is Atlanta in 1998 one of the worst teams ever? 14-2 in a division with the 12-4 49ers. Then they go into the playoffs and beat those 49ers and the 15-1 Vikes. Yes, I know they should have lost that game but to say a team that lost only 2 games before the SB on a list of worst ever is horrible. They didn't play a cake division, the 9ers were still very good.
The Falcons that year weren't one of the worst teams ever. But they were one of the worst teams to have made THE SUPER BOWL, and that's the point I'm making. By historical standards they were a good, solid team, just not an elite one.
 
How is Atlanta in 1998 one of the worst teams ever? 14-2 in a division with the 12-4 49ers. Then they go into the playoffs and beat those 49ers and the 15-1 Vikes. Yes, I know they should have lost that game but to say a team that lost only 2 games before the SB on a list of worst ever is horrible. They didn't play a cake division, the 9ers were still very good.
The Falcons that year weren't one of the worst teams ever. But they were one of the worst teams to have made THE SUPER BOWL, and that's the point I'm making. By historical standards they were a good, solid team, just not an elite one.
I know what you meant and I stand by the fact that is a horrible statement. Besides not liking Chandler, what makes that team so bad? I don't like Chandler either but funny thing is, if he doesn't miss a game due to injury, they also might have went 15-1 with the Vikes. Chandler passed for 3000+, they had an 1800 yard rusher, and two 1000+ yard recievers and played the 49ers 3 times and won twice who still had Young (4000 yards?), Rice (1000+), Owens (1000+), and Hearst (1500+). 6th in team O, 8th in team D. Vikes were 2 and 15. Broncos were 3 and 12. There stats seem to be as good as the teams that 'should' have played and you made no comment about the Broncos but I guess that was because Elway was the QB and you only dared mentioned Chandler as the reason why the Falcons shouldn't be in.Please state your case.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I know what you meant and I stand by the fact that is a horrible statement. Besides not liking Chandler, what makes that team so bad? I don't like Chandler either but funny thing is, if he doesn't miss a game due to injury, they also might have went 15-1 with the Vikes. Chandler passed for 3000+, they had an 1800 yard rusher, and two 1000+ yard recievers and played the 49ers 3 times and won twice who still had Young (4000 yards?), Rice (1000+), Owens (1000+), and Hearst (1500+). 6th in team O, 8th in team D. Vikes were 2 and 15. Broncos were 3 and 12. There stats seem to be as good as the teams that 'should' have played and you made no comment about the Broncos but I guess that was because Elway was the QB and you only dared mentioned Chandler as the reason why the Falcons shouldn't be in.
It's not that the Falcons were bad, obviously no bad team is going to make the Super Bowl, it's just that they weren't great. They remind me of the Chargers team that got blown out several years earlier, actually, solid all-round team, fine at running it, OK on defense, but just lacking that certain touch of class that makes a champion, that edge that turns the good into the elite. And of course the fact that Elway and the Broncos blew them out is proof enough that ultimately, they just weren't good enough.
 
You do have to take how good Chicago was into consideration, but when you lose by 36 points I think you're in the discussion.  Also, the Rams were actually leading that game 19-17, so I think they deserve some credit.
Lifelong Steeler fan here, so I remember the game vividly.I agree that the Rams deserve credit for how they played in SB XIV. However, it is debatable how much of their lead was due to their play and how much of it was due to the less than stellar play by the aging Steelers dynasty. The Steelers, of course, didn't even make the playoffs in 1980.

Anyway, I mention them because the original post asked for who didn't deserve to be there in the first place. They played their best game of the season once they got there, but the Rams were a 9-7 team, with 323 points scored vs. 309 points allowed in the regular season. Those numbers are probably the worst record and points differential of any Super Bowl team. And to me, being the worst out of 80 is probably worth a mention in this thread.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I know what you meant and I stand by the fact that is a horrible statement. Besides not liking Chandler, what makes that team so bad? I don't like Chandler either but funny thing is, if he doesn't miss a game due to injury, they also might have went 15-1 with the Vikes. Chandler passed for 3000+, they had an 1800 yard rusher, and two 1000+ yard recievers and played the 49ers 3 times and won twice who still had Young (4000 yards?), Rice (1000+), Owens (1000+), and Hearst (1500+). 6th in team O, 8th in team D. Vikes were 2 and 15. Broncos were 3 and 12. There stats seem to be as good as the teams that 'should' have played and you made no comment about the Broncos but I guess that was because Elway was the QB and you only dared mentioned Chandler as the reason why the Falcons shouldn't be in.
It's not that the Falcons were bad, obviously no bad team is going to make the Super Bowl, it's just that they weren't great. They remind me of the Chargers team that got blown out several years earlier, actually, solid all-round team, fine at running it, OK on defense, but just lacking that certain touch of class that makes a champion, that edge that turns the good into the elite. And of course the fact that Elway and the Broncos blew them out is proof enough that ultimately, they just weren't good enough.
:loco: So because they lost big and have Chandler, they are one of the worst teams to play in the Super Bowl? Ok, great reasoning. That ok defense was better than both the Vikings and Broncos stat wise and was nearly top 5. Stats don't tell all but I don't remember personally how those defs looked that year so all I can rely on is stats. This reasoning is weak. If the Seahawks get blown out, are they going to be added to the list? Would the Colts if they would have made it and gotten blown out?

I just don't get making a list like that with such little reasoning to back it up. Also, what does this mean? Do you think there are 10 better teams that year that should have made it instead? 5 better? 15 better? How many teams in 1998 would have been a better team to go than the Falcons?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You do have to take how good Chicago was into consideration, but when you lose by 36 points I think you're in the discussion.  Also, the Rams were actually leading that game 19-17, so I think they deserve some credit.
Lifelong Steeler fan here, so I remember the game vividly.I agree that the Rams deserve credit for how they played in SB XIV. However, it is debatable how much of their lead was due to their play and how much of it was due to the less than stellar play by the aging Steelers dynasty. The Steelers, of course, didn't even make the playoffs in 1980.

Anyway, I mention them because the original post asked for who didn't deserve to be there in the first place. They played their best game of the season once they got there, but the Rams were a 9-7 team, with 323 points scored vs. 309 points allowed in the regular season. Those numbers are probably the worst record and points differential of any Super Bowl team. And to me, being the worst out of 80 is probably worth a mention in this thread.
Lifelong Steeler fan here, too. Really, I agree with what you are saying about the Rams. The only reason I brought it up was because you said the Patriots were arguable even though they got beat bad. Even though they were playing Chicago, if you lose by that much I have to question the team.
 
So because they lost big and have Chandler, they are one of the worst teams to play in the Super Bowl?
Sure, getting blown out and not having a star QB in a game that demands a championship calibre QB will do that.
This reasoning is weak. If the Seahawks get blown out, are they going to be added to the list? Would the Colts if they would have made it and gotten blown out?
Certainly not in the case of the Colts because of the calibre of their team. The Seahawks could make this list but they'd really have to get blown out badly to do so.
I just don't get making a list like that with such little reasoning to back it up. Also, what does this mean? Do you think there are 10 better teams that year that should have made it instead? 5 better? 15 better? How many teams in 1998 would have been a better team to go than the Falcons?
The list is by definition subjective, but what I'm talking about is greatness -- or the absence of it in the case of the merely OK teams. I demand that Super Bowl teams be great, and when they are just OK, I am thoroughly disappointed. What makes a team great? We could talk for hours but you have to look at the elite calibre of its players, it record of achievement, its esprit de corps, a certain swagger, a championship mentality. And the Falcons didn't have that, and nor did the Chargers.
 
So because they lost big and have Chandler, they are one of the worst teams to play in the Super Bowl?
Sure, getting blown out and not having a star QB in a game that demands a championship calibre QB will do that.
This reasoning is weak. If the Seahawks get blown out, are they going to be added to the list? Would the Colts if they would have made it and gotten blown out?
Certainly not in the case of the Colts because of the calibre of their team. The Seahawks could make this list but they'd really have to get blown out badly to do so.
I just don't get making a list like that with such little reasoning to back it up. Also, what does this mean? Do you think there are 10 better teams that year that should have made it instead? 5 better? 15 better? How many teams in 1998 would have been a better team to go than the Falcons?
The list is by definition subjective, but what I'm talking about is greatness -- or the absence of it in the case of the merely OK teams. I demand that Super Bowl teams be great, and when they are just OK, I am thoroughly disappointed. What makes a team great? We could talk for hours but you have to look at the elite calibre of its players, it record of achievement, its esprit de corps, a certain swagger, a championship mentality. And the Falcons didn't have that, and nor did the Chargers.
I don't remember a whole lot about the 1998 season but wouldn't the Dirty Bird becoming a household name a sense of swagger? I have trouble believing that a team that had won 21 out of their last 24 games going into the SB was without swagger. And the fact they didn't have an elite player on their roster could make it more impressive especially when they go against a couple teams in the playoffs who have or will have multiple HOFs. As little as I remember about that year, I do know they had swagger and a championship mentality. Don't let that be forgotten because all the hype was with the Broncos.

 
You do have to take how good Chicago was into consideration, but when you lose by 36 points I think you're in the discussion.  Also, the Rams were actually leading that game 19-17, so I think they deserve some credit.
Lifelong Steeler fan here, so I remember the game vividly.I agree that the Rams deserve credit for how they played in SB XIV. However, it is debatable how much of their lead was due to their play and how much of it was due to the less than stellar play by the aging Steelers dynasty. The Steelers, of course, didn't even make the playoffs in 1980.

Anyway, I mention them because the original post asked for who didn't deserve to be there in the first place. They played their best game of the season once they got there, but the Rams were a 9-7 team, with 323 points scored vs. 309 points allowed in the regular season. Those numbers are probably the worst record and points differential of any Super Bowl team. And to me, being the worst out of 80 is probably worth a mention in this thread.
Lifelong Steeler fan here, too. Really, I agree with what you are saying about the Rams. The only reason I brought it up was because you said the Patriots were arguable even though they got beat bad. Even though they were playing Chicago, if you lose by that much I have to question the team.
Odogs,Good points all around. It all depends on your perspective. I think both the 1979 Rams and 1985 Patriots overachieved in the conference playoffs. So the question becomes, is a team underserving of a Super Bowl appearance based more on their Super Bowl game performance or on their regular season performance?

I choose regular season performance. At 9-7, the Rams had the 6th best record in the NFC and 11th best record (tied with four AFC teams) in the NFL. They were not in the top ten in points scored or in points allowed.

Even though the Patriots were blown out in the Super Bowl, I think they were more deserving of being at the game. At 11-5, they were tied for fourth in the entire NFL in wins and finished in the top ten in both points scored and allowed. They just ran into a buzzsaw in the Bears, and everything snowballed on them.

[NOTE: The 1979 Steelers were probably worn out by the Super Bowl, because they faced the toughest schedule of any Super Bowl champion in history, and this will remain true through Super Bowl XL. Their opponents were a combined 135-121, and 10 of their 16 regular season opponents had a winning record.]

 
Last edited by a moderator:
How about the Panthers in 2003? They only won because they hurt McNabb and their entire team was using steroids.How about the Chargers in '96 (i think)? They were a fluke and a half.Or the Falcons in '98? When they got raped by the Broncos.

 
14-2 Falcons? You gotta be kidding me! There are not more than a handful of teams in NFL history to win 14 regular season games. And they beat the best offensive team in NFL history in the 15-1 Vikings in Minny to get into the Bowl. Maybe you could argue that they weren't the best SB loser ever, but the worst? 1) Chris Chandler was a very good QB when healthy, and he had great targets2) Jamal Anderson was HUGE that year3) Their defense was HUGE that yearROFL

 
It offends my sense of natural justice that some horrible teams have made the Super Bowl. OK, not horrible. Just very, very average. The Super Bowl should feature two incredibly talented teams. It's an offense against nature when one of them is crummy. Such as:

XII: Dallas 27, Denver 10 - Low-grade Denver team

XVII: Washington 27, Miami 17 - What was the point of this Miami team?

XXIX: San Francisco 49, San Diego 26 - Very pedestrian Chargers team

XXXIII: Denver 34, Atlanta 19 - Chris Chandler in the Super Bowl?

XXXV: Baltimore 34, N.Y. Giants 7 - Painful to watch

Which teams do you think did not belong there? Note I haven't included those Bills and Broncos teams of the 90s/80s that lost 7 Super Bowls. At least those had some great players - or at least great QBs in Kelly and Elway - and you felt like they belonged there. I'm talking about, what the heck are they doing here teams?
don't know the # of the SB, but SF-Denver , final score 55-10, rings a bell..in fact, I'd put ANY John Elway SB appearance sans Terrell Davis as games that absolutely are among the worst SB games ever. I jus felt so ripped off watching the 9ers tear denver to shreds in that 55-10 ballgame..it was over before they sung the National Anthem. I still feel ripped off..Gaints definitely belong in this list, that debacle vs. Baltimore was a joke..

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'll stick up for the Broncos of SB XII.They finished 12-2 in a tough AFC. Beat the Pitsburgh Steelers, right in the middle of their dynasty, in the playoffs. Then beat the defending SB champs and their arch rivals, the Raiders, during what is arguably the prime of the Raiders organization.Sure they were outclassed in their first Super Bowl and the 8 turnovers just started to steam roll, but I disagree they were one of the worst teams ever in the Super Bowl, but their defense that year was still one of the best ever.

 
How about the 66 and 67 Packers? They were the best team in the league those years but relative to other Super Bowl Champions, they were pretty ordinary.

 
It offends my sense of natural justice that some horrible teams have made the Super Bowl. OK, not horrible. Just very, very average. The Super Bowl should feature two incredibly talented teams. It's an offense against nature when one of them is crummy. Such as:

XII: Dallas 27, Denver 10 - Low-grade Denver team

XVII: Washington 27, Miami 17 - What was the point of this Miami team?

XXIX: San Francisco 49, San Diego 26 - Very pedestrian Chargers team

XXXIII: Denver 34, Atlanta 19 - Chris Chandler in the Super Bowl?

XXXV: Baltimore 34, N.Y. Giants 7 - Painful to watch

Which teams do you think did not belong there? Note I haven't included those Bills and Broncos teams of the 90s/80s that lost 7 Super Bowls. At least those had some great players - or at least great QBs in Kelly and Elway - and you felt like they belonged there. I'm talking about, what the heck are they doing here teams?
don't know the # of the SB, but SF-Denver , final score 55-10, rings a bell..in fact, I'd put ANY John Elway SB appearance sans Terrell Davis as games that absolutely are among the worst SB games ever. I jus felt so ripped off watching the 9ers tear denver to shreds in that 55-10 ballgame..it was over before they sung the National Anthem. I still feel ripped off..Gaints definitely belong in this list, that debacle vs. Baltimore was a joke..
I feel ripped off by this too. I lost $500 on the game. Not because I thought the Broncos were actually going to win, but because a guy at work was a huge 9er fan and gave me the Broncos and 40 points. Of course we see how that turned out. :hot:
 
I feel ripped off by this too. I lost $500 on the game. Not because I thought the Broncos were actually going to win, but because a guy at work was a huge 9er fan and gave me the Broncos and 40 points. Of course we see how that turned out. :hot:
40 points! That arrogant son of b!%&*! He deserved to lose if he was going to give up 40 points.
 
The Super bowl XXXX Steelers
Oh they deserve to be there!If Big Ben is not hurt earlier in the season, the Steelers would have more likely won the division over the Bengals.

Three Games on the road, beating the #1, 2, and 3 seeded teams...

This had to be a fishing trip. :fishing:

 
I think New England 1985 might be more deserving.
They actually played great in getting to the Super Bowl and had some personality.
Played great in one game, the AFCC in Miami. Ruined possibly the best SB ever: A rematch between the dolphins and bears.
 
I think New England 1985 might be more deserving.
They actually played great in getting to the Super Bowl and had some personality.
Played great in one game, the AFCC in Miami. Ruined possibly the best SB ever: A rematch between the dolphins and bears.
Hmmm, Wildcard week, the Patriots dominated the Jets by forcing four turnovers in the game, winning 26-14 (on the road). Divisional round, Miami almost lost to the Browns…The Browns led 21-3 midway through the third period, but Miami then scored 21 unanswered points -- the final touchdown with 1:57 left to play. The Patriots on the other hand turned six turnovers into 17 points in a 27-20 win over the Raiders (on the road).

At the Championship game, the Patriots turned six Miami turnovers into 24 pts, beating Miani 31-14 (on the road).

I give the Pats a little credit for at least putting up some points against the Bears. Both the Giants and the Rams were shutout by the Bears. I don’t think anyone was going to beat the Bears that year. The Patriots deserved to be at the game. Not the way we wanted our first Super Bowl to go though!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
New England 2001.
I think New England 1985 might be more deserving.
:yes: Exactly what I was thinking...
2001 will always be tainted because of the Tuck Rule. I think some forget that on the same play, the game film shows that Raider safety Charles Woodson was guilty of roughing Brady by slapping him in the head. Had it been called, it would have resulted in a 15 yard penalty against the Raiders and would have made the tuck rule a moot point! Too bad that this was not the case. The Pats then went on to beat the Steelers, even after Brady was hurt (Drew steps in, in his last season as a Patriot). Then they beat the Rams, who no one gave them a chance over. The defense held them in check till the fourth quarter...the game score makes it seem like a closer game then it was. Both the 1985 and 2001 Patriots deserved to be in the those Super Bowls.

:2cents:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
2001 will always be tainted because of the Tuck Rule. I think some forget that on the same play, the game film shows that Raider safety Charles Woodson was guilty of roughing Brady by slapping him in the head. Had it been called, it would have resulted in a 15 yard penalty against the Raiders and would have made the tuck rule a moot point! Too bad that this was not the case. The Pats then went on to beat the Steelers, even after Brady was hurt (Drew steps in, in his last season as a Patriot). Then they beat the Rams, who no one gave them a chance over. The defense held them in check till the fourth quarter...the game score makes it seem like a closer game then it was.

Both the 1985 and 2001 Patriots deserved to be in the those Super Bowls.

:2cents:
I think the 2001 run will be tainted because Jon Gruden was an idiot and made one of the biggest f* up calls of all time.
 
New England 2001.
I think New England 1985 might be more deserving.
:yes: Exactly what I was thinking...
2001 will always be tainted because of the Tuck Rule. I think some forget that on the same play, the game film shows that Raider safety Charles Woodson was guilty of roughing Brady by slapping him in the head. Had it been called, it would have resulted in a 15 yard penalty against the Raiders and would have made the tuck rule a moot point! Too bad that this was not the case. The Pats then went on to beat the Steelers, even after Brady was hurt (Drew steps in, in his last season as a Patriot). Then they beat the Rams, who no one gave them a chance over. The defense held them in check till the fourth quarter...the game score makes it seem like a closer game then it was. Both the 1985 and 2001 Patriots deserved to be in the those Super Bowls.

:2cents:
I never said they didn't deserve to be in the Super Bowl, I was just responding to the original poster who brought up the 2001 Patriots. The 1985 Pats had a pretty good record(11-5) but they finished third in their own division and got blown out in the Super Bowl. I don't think anyone would have beaten the Bears though.
 
It offends my sense of natural justice that some horrible teams have made the Super Bowl. OK, not horrible. Just very, very average. The Super Bowl should feature two incredibly talented teams. It's an offense against nature when one of them is crummy. Such as:

XII: Dallas 27, Denver 10 - Low-grade Denver team

XVII: Washington 27, Miami 17 - What was the point of this Miami team?

XXIX: San Francisco 49, San Diego 26 - Very pedestrian Chargers team

XXXIII: Denver 34, Atlanta 19 - Chris Chandler in the Super Bowl?

XXXV: Baltimore 34, N.Y. Giants 7 - Painful to watch

Which teams do you think did not belong there? Note I haven't included those Bills and Broncos teams of the 90s/80s that lost 7 Super Bowls. At least those had some great players - or at least great QBs in Kelly and Elway - and you felt like they belonged there. I'm talking about, what the heck are they doing here teams?
A choking 15-1 Vikings team should have taken this team out early. Atlanta should have never been there.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
2001 will always be tainted because of the Tuck Rule.  I think some forget that on the same play, the game film shows that Raider safety Charles Woodson was guilty of roughing Brady by slapping him in the head. Had it been called, it would have resulted in a 15 yard penalty against the Raiders and would have made the tuck rule a moot point!  Too bad that this was not the case.  The Pats then went on to beat the Steelers, even after Brady was hurt (Drew steps in, in his last season as a Patriot).  Then they beat the Rams, who no one gave them a chance over.  The defense held them in check till the fourth quarter...the game score makes it seem like a closer game then it was. 

Both the 1985 and 2001 Patriots deserved to be in the those Super Bowls.

:2cents:
I think the 2001 run will be tainted because Jon Gruden was an idiot and made one of the biggest f* up calls of all time.
4 years later, I'm still amazed that the Steelers lost because of 14 special teams points. The 2001 Pats were a well-deserving team, as evidenced by their Super Bowl victory, but that loss still bugs me.Why the piss couldn't Josh Miller have punted the ball out of bounds, away from Troy Brown, like Cowher told him to?

:wall:

 
4 years later, I'm still amazed that the Steelers lost because of 14 special teams points. The 2001 Pats were a well-deserving team, as evidenced by their Super Bowl victory, but that loss still bugs me.

Why the piss couldn't Josh Miller have punted the ball out of bounds, away from Troy Brown, like Cowher told him to?

:wall:
That was a game the Steelers let get away from them.
 
The Atlanta Falcons in 1998 were a very good team....like someone said, 14-2 teams don't grow on trees....go back and look at the teams with better winning percentages than the Falcons for a season that actually made the Super Bowl. There aren't many.......

 
The Atlanta Falcons in 1998 were a very good team....like someone said, 14-2 teams don't grow on trees....go back and look at the teams with better winning percentages than the Falcons for a season that actually made the Super Bowl. There aren't many.......
I was just looking to see why some felt this way for Atlanta...First Round Bye

Played the 49ers to win 20-18:

Atlanta running back Jamal Anderson scored two touchdowns and the Falcons intercepted three passes as they barely escaped with a victory.
Played the Vikings to win it in OT 30-27:
After Minnesota kicker Gary Anderson missed a field goal with two minutes to play in the fourth quarter (his first miss of the season), the Falcons tied it up on a 16-yard touchdown pass to Terrance Mathis. In overtime, Falcons quarterback Chris Chandler, on a bad ankle, drove 70 yards to set up Morten Andersen's 38-yard field goal that put Atlanta in the Super Bowl for the first time in team history.
Is it because both games were close? Looks like they were favored over the 49ers and won, and the Vikings were favored and they beat them.
 
I feel ripped off by this too. I lost $500 on the game. Not because I thought the Broncos were actually going to win, but because a guy at work was a huge 9er fan and gave me the Broncos and 40 points. Of course we see how that turned out. :hot:
40 points! That arrogant son of b!%&*! He deserved to lose if he was going to give up 40 points.
That's a damn funny story though.... :lmao:

 
In the last 15 years, I'll choose:The 1992 Bills.11-5 wild cardBest record in the AFC that year was - 11-5The Dolphins, Bills, Steelers, and Chargers were all 11-5#3 scoring offense, yet only 381 points#14 scoring defenseoffensive yards per point: 16.05yards allowed per point allowed: 17.51This was the club that executed a miracle comeback on the Oilers in the first round. The Oilers were some iffy 10-6 club. Then they eliminated an iffy Steeler club that only scored 299 points on the season, 24-3. Then in the AFC title game they drew a weak Dolphins team that only outscored their opponents by 59 points for the season. So the Bills then hop into the Super Bowl in what suddenly looks like a magical season for them only to get annihilated by the Cowboys 52-17.

 
The 1992 Bills.11-5 wild cardBest record in the AFC that year was - 11-5The Dolphins, Bills, Steelers, and Chargers were all 11-5#3 scoring offense, yet only 381 points#14 scoring defenseoffensive yards per point: 16.05yards allowed per point allowed: 17.51This was the club that executed a miracle comeback on the Oilers in the first round. The Oilers were some iffy 10-6 club. Then they eliminated an iffy Steeler club that only scored 299 points on the season, 24-3. Then in the AFC title game they drew a weak Dolphins team that only outscored their opponents by 59 points for the season. So the Bills then hop into the Super Bowl in what suddenly looks like a magical season for them only to get annihilated by the Cowboys 52-17.
I hear you. I still think any team that goes to four straight SBs and features JIM KELLY, THURMAN THOMAS, KENT HULL, JIM RITCHER, HOUSE BALLARD, ANDRE REED, JAMES LOFTON, BRUCE SMITH, CORNELIUS BENNETT, DARRYL TALLEY, NATE ODOMES and a bunch of other great figures deserves rememberance as an elite team.
 
I'll stick up for the Broncos of SB XII.

They finished 12-2 in a tough AFC.  Beat the Pitsburgh Steelers, right in the middle of their dynasty, in the playoffs.  Then beat the defending SB champs and their arch rivals, the Raiders, during what is arguably the prime of the Raiders organization.

Sure they were outclassed in their first Super Bowl and the 8 turnovers just started to steam roll, but I disagree they were one of the worst teams ever in the Super Bowl, but their defense that year was still one of the best ever.
Maybe this one would be better...Super Bowl XXII - Washington 42, Denver 10

Denver almost lost in the Championship game against the Browns (best remembered for "The Fumble" when Earnest Byner fumbled at the Broncos' 3-yard line with 65 seconds remaining). (Final score Broncos 38, Browns 33)

Then in the Super Bowl, the Broncos come out and score the first 10 points, only to give up 35 points in the 2nd Quarter! :eek: Washington tacked on 7 more in the fourth quarter.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I still think any team that goes to four straight SBs and features JIM KELLY, THURMAN THOMAS, KENT HULL, JIM RITCHER, HOUSE BALLARD, ANDRE REED, JAMES LOFTON, BRUCE SMITH, CORNELIUS BENNETT, DARRYL TALLEY, NATE ODOMES and a bunch of other great figures deserves rememberance as an elite team.
All four teams? I don't think so. The 1992 version was much weaker than the others.
 
All four teams? I don't think so. The 1992 version was much weaker than the others.
Well, at the risk of splitting hairs, no it wasn't. They may have had a poorer season in 1992, but the personnel was the same as the other years (give or take one or two minor changes).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top