Worst playoff team in NFL history?

[Brian wolf]

You're right Bryan about Buffalo. I tried to look at full seasons, not a strike season like 1982. Houston would qualify for 14 games and I guess Washington/Seattle/Carolina for 16 games.
Tampa Bay would have fewest wins for 17 games in Brady's last year.

[7DnBrnc53]

I would nominate the 2012-14 Colts. They only had ten Pro Bowlers over a three-year span, and their defense was rated 21st in 2012 and 19th in 2014. I don't know why people were high on that team at the time. When they went downhill for a few years after the 2014 AFC Title Game loss, I wasn't surprised.

[Brian wolf]

What's interesting about the Andrew Luck years with the Colts, was once he retired before the 2019 season, both TY Hilton and Eric Ebron's careers were affected. Hilton was easily heading towards 10,000 career receiving yards but also got injured in his first season without Luck in 2019. Ebron went from Pro Bowl player to leaving the team for Pittsburgh in 2020. I always felt Luck would come back to play but he stayed retired.

[7DnBrnc53]

This reminds me of my favorite playoff team of all-time....the 1989 Steelers! They somehow snuck in at 9-7 because three other teams lost on the last week of the regular season. The QB duo of Brister & Blackledge accounted for 10 TD passes. The Bengals, who missed the postseason, threw for 32 TDs that year. I remember the Steelers having WRs like Derek Hill and Mark Stock who couldn't catch anything. Yet this team still beat the Oilers in Houston (and almost beat the Broncos).

The 1984 Steelers were worse than the 89 Steelers. The 89 Steelers had a lot of young guys with potential. The 84 Steelers had a shaky Mark Malone at QB, even less leftovers from the 70's days, and young guys that really didn't have much of a future with the team.

[Bryan]

The 1984 Steelers were worse than the 89 Steelers. The 89 Steelers had a lot of young guys with potential. The 84 Steelers had a shaky Mark Malone at QB, even less leftovers from the 70's days, and young guys that really didn't have much of a future with the team.

By what measure? John Stallworth alone had more receiving TDs than the 1989 Steelers. The 84 Steelers still had a powerful WR corps and a strong OL. The offense scored like 150 more points than the 89 Steelers, and the defense allowed fewer points than the 89 Steelers. They beat the Niners in 84. I think the young guys they had in 84 like Lipps and Merriweather were fantastic but they both kind of flamed out early, but they were both great in 84. I just can't get over how bad that 89 Steeler offense was.

[CSKreager]

The 1984 Steelers were worse than the 89 Steelers. The 89 Steelers had a lot of young guys with potential. The 84 Steelers had a shaky Mark Malone at QB, even less leftovers from the 70's days, and young guys that really didn't have much of a future with the team.

By what measure? John Stallworth alone had more receiving TDs than the 1989 Steelers. The 84 Steelers still had a powerful WR corps and a strong OL. The offense scored like 150 more points than the 89 Steelers, and the defense allowed fewer points than the 89 Steelers. They beat the Niners in 84. I think the young guys they had in 84 like Lipps and Merriweather were fantastic but they both kind of flamed out early, but they were both great in 84. I just can't get over how bad that 89 Steeler offense was.

The reality is those 84 Steelers would have been a 10-win team if not for the single flukiest play of the 1984 season against Indianapolis and a bizarre moment of serendipity

[7DnBrnc53]

By what measure? John Stallworth alone had more receiving TDs than the 1989 Steelers. The 84 Steelers still had a powerful WR corps and a strong OL. The offense scored like 150 more points than the 89 Steelers, and the defense allowed fewer points than the 89 Steelers. They beat the Niners in 84. I think the young guys they had in 84 like Lipps and Merriweather were fantastic but they both kind of flamed out early, but they were both great in 84. I just can't get over how bad that 89 Steeler offense was.

The 84 Steelers only played in four games against teams that would go on to finish above .500 (they did go 3-1 somehow, but only playing in four such games just shows you how weak their division was that year), and the 89 Steelers played seven (finishing 3-4, which is to be expected with such a young team).

Also, the 84 Steelers faced off against a lot of backup-type QB's (Pat Ryan, Paul McDonald, Richard Todd, Turk Schonert, etc...) and lower-rated defenses.

[74_75_78_79_]

As for the '89 Steelers' bad stats, it clearly begins with those notorious first two games. But it's more than just '92-10', but also getting blown-out at both Houston & Denver along with their 20-0 loss at home to Chicago. Pretty hard to gloss all of that over. After that loss to the Bears, they finish 5-1 but to soft competition which brings yet another argument against their credibility.

But there's one thing that '89 has over '84 is that they, at least, beat the bad teams. Yes, that loss to the Bears but FWIW Chicago was still above-500 when they lost to them. As for their six other defeats, two of them were against a "dangerous" just-miss defending-AFC champ who had Pittsburgh's # in the first place. The other four losses were against playoff teams.

And quality-wins those '89 Steelers did, indeed, have. They beat Minnesota, the Browns at Cleveland in their rematch with them (Blackledge in for Brister, mind you), and the Chiefs in Marty's KC debut (Cowher his DC). But 1984's such wins over the Rams, of course AT San Fran, and the finale in LA over the defending-Champs who had their # is much more impressive.

And the '84 Steelers are not statistically challenged as the case with '89. They were pretty good statistically, actually. Some of it is discussed in this recent thread...

viewtopic.php?t=7722

And, yes, there's also the Stallworth (and LIpps) factor with me. '84 had more 'names' which further reminds us of the COY job Chuck Noll, indeed, did in his final hour. Yes, '84 was impressive as well considering what he also lacked, but still.

As nostalgic I'll always be for '89, the installment five years prior is noticeably the stronger of the two with me.

[7DnBrnc53]

As nostalgic I'll always be for '89, the installment five years prior is noticeably the stronger of the two with me.

Here's the thing: I know that the 84 Steelers did have some strong road wins (@SF and @Raiders). However, I think that Brister was the lesser of two evils at QB (and, some people thought that he had a bright future at the time). And, while the 89 Steeler offense wasn't as good on paper, it produced when it had to (and they had the better offensive line). Their offense was going in the right direction when Tom Moore was mistakenly fired and replaced by Joe Walton.

[Bryan]

And, while the 89 Steeler offense wasn't as good on paper

Wasn't good "on paper'? The Steelers averaged 4.2 YPP, which was last in the league by almost half a yard. They gained fewer than 4000 total yards (also last in the league). I would just shorten that statement to "the 89 Steeler offense wasn't good".