1998

[ShinobiMusashi]

I think that Falcons team had a certain energy, they were inspired, just the right mix of the right guys where the planets aligned that year and they were able to have an excellent season.

But after digging so deep into 1998, I do believe the Falcons 14-2 record and Minnesota's 15-1 records are inflated due to how weak the NFC had become by that season. Look at how shallow that conference was that year beyond the big 4, it's pretty remarkable, a lot of bad teams bouncing around the NFC in 98 padding records. I do think he has a point if that Falcons or Vikings played in the AFC those records would come down a little at least. AFC was legit tough in 98 down to the teams that finished in the cellars, I mean look at that 6-10 Raven's team playing in their new stadium with Rod Woodson and that defense. Even the Bengals the worst team in the conference looked like a tough ball club at times that year when O'Donnell was healthy.

As we seen in that Super Bowl, there was a big difference in Atlanta's NFC 14-2 and Denver's hard earned AFC 14-2. Swap their schedules and Denver probably goes 16-0, while Atlanta 11-5ish.

The AFC wasn’t THAT good. Beating a bunch of .500 teams doesn’t exactly scream “hard earned”

Maybe less of the AFC being "THAT good" and more of the NFC being that bad. Rams, Saints, Lions, and Bears were really bad. The Panthers and Eagles were the 2 biggest train wrecks in the NFL that year. Washington and New York started off extremely bad but were able to salvage some respect in the second half of the season with 6-10 and 8-8 finishes. That is over half of the conference, 8 of 15 teams. And then think about that how some of these teams were padding their records playing each other, so some of those 6-10 and 8-8's are deceiving. These teams were worse than those numbers. I would say yeah, there is a pretty big difference in Giants 8-8 and Seattle's 8-8, or a pretty big difference in the Saint's 6-10 and Baltimore's 6-10. Two different worlds that season, I never realized it until this deep dive this past Summer into 1998. There was a noticeable gap between the two conferences in the AFC's favor that year, similar to some of the year's during the NFC's 1984-1996 streak. The tables had turned the poles reversed. Then the AFC bullied the NFC in the pro bowl, physically.

[Mark]

According to Pro Football Reference the 1998 Falcons had a tougher schedule than either the Vikings or Broncos. I think someone here even said they thought the Broncos would have gone 16-0 if they were in the NFC ignoring the fact that one of their losses was to the Giants. I do think the Falcons over achieved and I would have been shocked if the SB vs. Denver would have been close but still... I am so tired of the "they had an easy schedule" being used every time someone wants to downplay a team they seem to have a prejudice against, especially when that team did not at all have an easy schedule. Plus this isn't college where a team may feast on a cupcake schedule they helped arrange.

[ShinobiMusashi]

According to Pro Football Reference the 1998 Falcons had a tougher schedule than either the Vikings or Broncos. I think someone here even said they thought the Broncos would have gone 16-0 if they were in the NFC ignoring the fact that one of their losses was to the Giants. I do think the Falcons over achieved and I would have been shocked if the SB vs. Denver would have been close but still... I am so tired of the "they had an easy schedule" being used every time someone wants to downplay a team they seem to have a prejudice against, especially when that team did not at all have an easy schedule. Plus this isn't college where a team may feast on a cupcake schedule they helped arrange.

I really don't have any prejudice against the 98 Falcons or 99 Jaguars or 99 Rams or any other team that I've always been critical of their schedule. For the record I believe the 98 Falcons were the better team in the NFC Championship Game that the best team won there was no fluke there with the win over the Vikings. Even though these teams didn't have any choice in their schedule they certainly were helped out by just luck of the draw some years. Sure Denver got beat by the Giants team that Atlanta beat but that was in two different phases of that Giants' team season that year. Atlanta beat them early on in the year, while latter on when they finally started feeding Gary Brown the ball and had Kent Graham that was a little bit of a different team than the Danny Kannell team earlier in 98.

I see no harm in comparing the strength of schedules of the teams, Denver vs Atlanta; start at their division. The Falcons getting 6 games against New Orleans, St. Louis, and Carolina is getting a pretty big boost there, those were definitely 3 of the worst teams in the NFL that year. The Saints with Mike Ditka, The Rams were 4-12, and Panthers one of the biggest train wrecks of the NFL season. The San Francisco team they had to get by was legit, can't take anything away from their 2 wins over them to get to the Super Bowl really. Denver didn't have anything like that to deal with in the AFC West, but they didn't get the 6 games of tomato cans to pad their record either. San Diego was the only jobber in the West in 98 really because of the quarterback situation(Ryan Leaf). Seattle, Kansas City, and Oakland were all solid teams, those were 6 challenging games for the Broncos.

Outside of the division Denver had New England and Jacksonville, 2 of the contenders in the AFC that year. Also Dallas and Miami 2 other playoff teams. Washington, Philly, and Cincy were the only weak sisters on their schedule. For Atlanta they got Chicago, Detroit, Philly, Indianapolis. I'd say Denver's schedule was significantly tougher than Atlanta's. Atlanta was really good team that benefited from being in a weak division within a weak conference similar to some of the AFC Champion teams that got blew out in the Super Bowl from 84 to 96.

-

[ShinobiMusashi]

According to Pro Football Reference the 1998 Falcons had a tougher schedule than either the Vikings or Broncos. I think someone here even said they thought the Broncos would have gone 16-0 if they were in the NFC ignoring the fact that one of their losses was to the Giants. I do think the Falcons over achieved and I would have been shocked if the SB vs. Denver would have been close but still... I am so tired of the "they had an easy schedule" being used every time someone wants to downplay a team they seem to have a prejudice against, especially when that team did not at all have an easy schedule. Plus this isn't college where a team may feast on a cupcake schedule they helped arrange.

I really don't have any prejudice against the 98 Falcons or 99 Jaguars or 99 Rams or any other team that I've always been critical of their schedule. For the record I believe the 98 Falcons were the better team in the NFC Championship Game that the best team won there was no fluke there with the win over the Vikings. Even though these teams didn't have any choice in their schedule they certainly were helped out by just luck of the draw some years. Sure Denver got beat by the Giants team that Atlanta beat but that was in two different phases of that Giants' team season that year. Atlanta beat them early on in the year, while latter on when they finally started feeding Gary Brown the ball and had Kent Graham that was a little bit of a different team than the Danny Kannell team earlier in 98.

I see no harm in comparing the strength of schedules of the teams, Denver vs Atlanta; start at their division. The Falcons getting 6 games against New Orleans, St. Louis, and Carolina is getting a pretty big boost there, those were definitely 3 of the worst teams in the NFL that year. The Saints with Mike Ditka, The Rams were 4-12, and Panthers one of the biggest train wrecks of the NFL season. The San Francisco team they had to get by was legit, can't take anything away from their 2 wins over them to get to the Super Bowl really. Denver didn't have anything like that to deal with in the AFC West, but they didn't get the 6 games of tomato cans to pad their record either. San Diego was the only jobber in the West in 98 really because of the quarterback situation(Ryan Leaf). Seattle, Kansas City, and Oakland were all solid teams, those were 6 challenging games for the Broncos.

Outside of the division Denver had New England and Jacksonville, 2 of the contenders in the AFC that year. Also Dallas and Miami 2 other playoff teams. Washington, Philly, and Cincy were the only weak sisters on their schedule. For Atlanta they got Chicago, Detroit, Philly, Indianapolis. I'd say Denver's schedule was significantly tougher than Atlanta's. Atlanta was really good team that benefited from being in a weak division within a weak conference similar to some of the AFC Champion teams that got blew out in the Super Bowl from 84 to 96. Neither the Falcons nor Vikings of 1998 were anywhere remotely as good as those 14-2 or 15-1 records, those records are the result of playing in a really weak conference in the NFC that season as the result of 5 years of salary cap and unrestricted free agency.

-

[ShinobiMusashi]

If you were to swap schedules, the only real challenge that would give Denver is if they could have won in San Fran in Candlestick in week 3. That would have really been something I think, those two teams battling it out healthy. Maybe that was the real matchup we really missed out on that nobody ever talks about, I think that would have been a far better Super Bowl than Denver vs Minnesota and much much closer game than the 1989 blowout(Elway avenging that loss would be extra storybook for his finale). Young vs Elway.

Then I'm confident that version of Denver beats that version of the Giants in week 6. Then there is the road game against the Jets in week 8. Denver did beat them in the AFCCG but it was close. I think those two games on the road against the Jets and 49ers were the only things on Atlanta's 1998 schedule that would have stood in between the Broncos and a perfect season if you swapped schedules. They would have had some really ugly blowouts and probably would have put up even more points than Minnesota did.

[ShinobiMusashi]

accidental double post

[Mark]

I am not just speaking about 1998 though. Every team someone on this forum doesn't like was 'over rated" or "had an easy schedule" even when that schedule was above average in difficulty. According to some people every NFL champion sucked. They dismiss the 80s and 90s 49ers as having an easy schedule or saying Gibbs' teams had an easy schedule in spite of playing in a tough division. I'm sorry and maybe I will be banned but many of the opinions are here are really baseless and clearly biased.

[Mark]

my point about Denver losing to the Giants isn't that the Giants were actually better but rather how would the Broncos go 16-0 if they were in the NFC when they couldn't even go 4-0 vs. The NFC.

[JWL]

I am not just speaking about 1998 though. Every team someone on this forum doesn't like was 'over rated" or "had an easy schedule" even when that schedule was above average in difficulty. According to some people every NFL champion sucked. They dismiss the 80s and 90s 49ers as having an easy schedule or saying Gibbs' teams had an easy schedule in spite of playing in a tough division. I'm sorry and maybe I will be banned but many of the opinions are here are really baseless and clearly biased.

You would not be banned for having an opinion like this. I agree that there are some people here who have bizarre opinions about every team sucking in the NFL in entire decades. The 1980s was a giant decade of suck according to some. Joe Montana? System quarterback and sucked. 1989 49ers? Sucked. Joe Gibbs? Snake oil salesman who sucked. 1986 Buccaneers? Sucked. 1986 Giants? Oh, they sucked too. Almost as bad as the Buccaneers as a matter of fact.

[Citizen]

I am not just speaking about 1998 though. Every team someone on this forum doesn't like was 'over rated" or "had an easy schedule" even when that schedule was above average in difficulty. According to some people every NFL champion sucked.

It is quite tiresome how some people think it's their duty to arbitrarily crap all over the achievements of teams or players they don't like, especially with meaningless words like overrated. Those kind of "hot takes" are lukewarm at best, and they don't reflect well on this forum as a whole. Save that garbage for Reddit.