’86 Giants

[74_75_78_79_]

This team seems to get lost in “all-time-greatest-team” discussions. Coming right after da ’85 Bears doesn’t help matters. The ’84 Forty Niners, as historically overshadowed as they are, would seem to get more attention if only due to their 15-1 mark as opposed to G-men going 14-2. When looking at the two playoff games en route to SBXXI (66-3 combined vs SF & Wash), it’s really no less dominating than Chicago (45-0 combined) from the year before or the ’89 Forty Niners (71-16). Denver gave them a bit of hell in the first half, but G-men played to their fullest in the second as I myself, at the time, expected.

Where do you guys place this team historically? Are they that far behind those great teams right in their era?

[Bryan]

While I think their demolition of SF and Washington is arguably more impressive than the 85 Bears stonewalling two offensively-challenged teams in NY and LA, I don't consider the 1986 Giants to be one of the great teams. They won a lot of close games during the year (expected W-L is 11.9-4.1) and kind of had a "team of destiny" thing going. Super Bowl aside, Phil Simms had a mediocre season (22 INTs, 9 fumbles, 45 sacks, Rate+100) and the Giants offense wasn't great. I don't really see much difference between the 1985 Giants and the 1986 Giants other than they didn't have to face the Bears in the postseason in 86. The 1986 Giants averaged 5.0 yards per play and allowed 4.8, while the 1985 Giants averaged 5.2 yards per play and allowed 4.2

He's forgotten now, but Joe Morris was a great RB for those Giant teams. He wasn't very big at all, and Parcells ran him into the ground in 1986 with 341 carries. Morris wasn't as effective in 1987 and 1988, and the Giants as a whole became just another team.

This might sound dumb, but I think the 1986 Giants 'greatness' was affected by their 1987 opener against the Bears. I remember the buildup for the game was tremendous, a "Clash of Champions" or something along those lines. The Bears had to start Mike Tomczak at QB, the Giants scored TDs on a blocked punt and an INT return...and the Giants still lost 34-19. Phil Simms and the Giants offense couldn't do anything until a garbage TD drive in the 4th quarter.

[74_75_78_79_]

The G-men of ’86 did win quite their share of close games in that 9-0 regular season finish. However, five of those wins in that stretch were vs teams that finished above-500: Wash (twice), @Min, Den, and @SF. First-half of season, Chicago seemed the same as last year as well as being better than Giants, but starting with that first loss suffered at Minn followed by a MNF home-loss to Rams two weeks later, they seemed quite off. A big finish themselves at 7-0 going into playoffs, but all vs weak-competition with most of those wins being close. Even with a healthy McMahon, IMHO, I just couldn’t have seen Chicago get within a TD at the Meadowlands in a hypo-NFCC match, especially considering just how dominant Giants were once those playoffs began.

Good points made though, Bryan. Simms wasn’t that great statistically during regular season. That ’85/’86 yards-per-play comparison a nice factoid. After suffering that ‘hangover’ in ’87, as you state, they went back to being just a plain good team (they were a different team by ’90). I think the ’86 Giants should still be respected as a legit SB-champ, but perhaps your points, Bryan, should be enough to give the “all-time-greats” the noticeable distance from them.

[Bryan]

Came across this tidbit...I guess I never really paid attention to how NFL Films ranked the top 20 Super Bowl teams in their America's Game series, but the 1986 Giants had an absurdly high ranking (IMO) of #13, ahead of some of the greatest statistical teams in history (1971 Cowboys, 1991 Redskins (!), 1996 Packers, 1994 Niners).

[lastcat3]

Came across this tidbit...I guess I never really paid attention to how NFL Films ranked the top 20 Super Bowl teams in their America's Game series, but the 1986 Giants had an absurdly high ranking (IMO) of #13, ahead of some of the greatest statistical teams in history (1971 Cowboys, 1991 Redskins (!), 1996 Packers, 1994 Niners).

They needed to include at least one of the Giants Super Bowl champions (America's Game was made in 2006 (prior to the recent G-Men Super Bowl victories)) and the '86 team was probably better than the '90 version so might as well of included them.

Outside of the top 5 or so where the teams really stand out there is a lot of subjectivity over where teams should be ranked anyways. I personally wouldn't include any of the teams after the '98 Broncos in the top 20. I just don't see teams being as well rounded now as they were then. Even the '2000 Ravens who had one of the best defenses in the history of the game had a very average offense which many of those Super Bowl champs of earlier days would have taken real advantage of.

[Gary Najman]

This might sound dumb, but I think the 1986 Giants 'greatness' was affected by their 1987 opener against the Bears. I remember the buildup for the game was tremendous, a "Clash of Champions" or something along those lines. The Bears had to start Mike Tomczak at QB, the Giants scored TDs on a blocked punt and an INT return...and the Giants still lost 34-19. Phil Simms and the Giants offense couldn't do anything until a garbage TD drive in the 4th quarter.

That was the game when Elvis Patterson got "toasted".

[Halas Hall]

I think they were 10-2 with a lot of very close wins entering December, then took things up a notch. They fell behind the 49ers at halftime 17-0 on Monday night football in Candlestick Park but came back to win 21-17, soundly beat the Redskins six days later in RFK, beat the Cardinals and Packers at home, then took care of business in the playoffs.

I agree the 1987 season opener in Soldier Field took away a little luster.

[JuggernautJ]

Perhaps it's hindsight but it seems as if the Champs from 1984, '85 and '86 were "destined" to win it all and go down as among the best teams in NFL history.
Well, it's not all hindsight. I remember thinking so at the time.

Each of those teams had a certain (what we'd call today) swagger that let you know they thought they were better than everyone else.
I've (successfully) tried to block the details of the Giants comeback against the 49ers in '86 but I remember thinking, at the time, "Well, if they can do that they believe they can do anything..."

So, yes. Maybe the Giants were in some close games. Maybe they weren't as dominant as the 84 Niners or 85 Bears but look into they eyes of Bill Parcells or Lawrence Taylor in films form 1986 and tell me they weren't (by far) the hungriest, angriest, nastiest and most determined bunch of muthers in the league since... well, the '85 Bears.
I don't think anyone was going to stop those Giants.

I would put them in the second tier of "great teams," just behind some of the truly "best of the best" in football history.

[nicefellow31]

Perhaps it's hindsight but it seems as if the Champs from 1984, '85 and '86 were "destined" to win it all and go down as among the best teams in NFL history.
Well, it's not all hindsight. I remember thinking so at the time.

Each of those teams had a certain (what we'd call today) swagger that let you know they thought they were better than everyone else.
I've (successfully) tried to block the details of the Giants comeback against the 49ers in '86 but I remember thinking, at the time, "Well, if they can do that they believe they can do anything..."

So, yes. Maybe the Giants were in some close games. Maybe they weren't as dominant as the 84 Niners or 85 Bears but look into they eyes of Bill Parcells or Lawrence Taylor in films form 1986 and tell me they weren't (by far) the hungriest, angriest, nastiest and most determined bunch of muthers in the league since... well, the '85 Bears.
I don't think anyone was going to stop those Giants.

I would put them in the second tier of "great teams," just behind some of the truly "best of the best" in football history.

Yes. As Redskins fan I would agree. It was very frustrating to lose 3 times to them that year. 2nd half of NFC Championship was brutal as there was nothing the Skins could do to beat them.