1995: Packers VS Steelers

[74_75_78_79_]

Of course both Dallas and San Fran were again the top-2 teams in the league in '95 but who was '3rd'? Both these teams did play in the finale with the 'Burgh already having clinched a 1st-round bye as the Pack needed the win to take the division. Steelers almost won anyway, a Thigpen endzone drop from doing so. Pretty close one just the same. Steelers were better in '94, Pack better in '96, but who was better between both in '95?

[Hail Casares]

The 1995 Chiefs were IMO better than the Steelers.

[Ronfitch]

The 1995 Chiefs were IMO better than the Steelers.

That '95 Chiefs squad was good. They were a favorite in the first round against the Colts, but were hurt by four turnovers and three missed FGs (35, 39 and 42).

Also, I am not convinced that Green Bay had not overtaken SF in '95.

[Citizen]

Agreed, Green Bay's dominance over the 11-point favorite defending Super Bowl champions in a road division playoff game propelled them to another level. IMO they were quite superior to Pittsburgh despite the good fight Pittsburgh gave them in the finale.

[74_75_78_79_]

Although a hypo-SBXXX between Steelers and Pack would have been competitive, I seriously unbiasedly think the 'Burgh was better; especially in the LBs/RB departments. As I said numerous times already, many of you successfully convinced me that '97 Chiefs were no paper-tiger at all, but IMO the '95 Chiefs were.

[lastcat3]

Although a hypo-SBXXX between Steelers and Pack would have been competitive, I seriously unbiasedly think the 'Burgh was better; especially in the LBs/RB departments. As I said numerous times already, many of you successfully convinced me that '97 Chiefs were no paper-tiger at all, but IMO the '95 Chiefs were.

The '95 Steelers may have been better than that years Packer squad in a few areas like you mentioned. However Green Bay was vastly supperior to the Steelers in the qb department and I think the Steelers would have had trouble matching the Packers offense because of that.