SeahawkFever wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2024 2:30 pm
First off, thank you for taking the time to type all of that down for reference, very helpful.
As for the teams we've mentioned:
I'd agree that the 07 Giants are higher than the second worst. If anything, I think you could argue that the 1970 Colts were worse than both of those Giants teams in spite of their record. They had a very good record, but were average statistically, and I don't see anyone arguing that the playoff wins they put up were particularly impressive.
As for the 15 Broncos, I could see a good argument for higher than 53rd, and same with the 74 Steelers for higher than 43rd. As for the 88 Niners, I would say they should be ranked right next to the Chiefs of this past season. I can't vouch for the Niners during the 1988 season, but I don't recall anyone saying the Chiefs were the best team in the league at any point in the regular season, and both happened to follow it up with a playoff appearance that led to a title.
Also, in the case of the 1988 Niners, if Steve Young is tackled on his run against the Vikings (and assuming they lose), they aren't in the playoffs at all (if that happened then I favor Minnesota to go to the Super Bowl, but that's besides the point).
As for the 1967 Packers, I could see them being on the same level as say the 2017 Eagles. They definitely appear to have coasted at the end of their regular season. Also, while on the Packers, I'd switch the 1966 and 1996 teams in ranking, but that's just me. In the case of the 60's Packers, the best team they ever had was in 1962 in my opinion, and that one isn't going to be on a list like this.
The 1989 49ers should be no worse than sixth in my opinion, and I'd take that team over 84 and 94 personally. 84 should be more like tenth or so, and 94 I'd have in the mid teens. 94 was a great team don't get me wrong (and one that could've repeated in 95 if Steve Young doesn't get injured and miss six games), but I think of that one as about as good as my Seahawks championship in 2013, and the 86 Giants (who are a few spots too low in my opinion).
As for your Steelers, I would say 1975 is certainly the best team they've ever had. I think it says something that the 1975 team scored more points than 1978 in two fewer games and without the Mel Blount rule, and that it allowed fewer points in the regular season (both total and per game), and against a tougher schedule in the regular season too. In 78, the Steelers had a better first two playoff games (and thus better postseason stats overall), but I'm taking 75 over 78, and I'd argue top five for that one.
From a Seahawks fan, the 75 Steelers are one of the most overlooked teams ever because the 76 team gets a lot of retrospective praise for overcoming a bad start (and if they won it all after the season they had, we'd probably call it the best one by consensus, but as is they made the conference championship game and lost there), and because 78 is often labeled the best Steeler team by NFL Films (really good season, but I don't agree personally).
75 isn't much worse statistically than 76, and I'd argue that the fact that that team won it all and 76 lost in the conference championship game cancels out whatever statistical advantages 76 has going for it, and I'd argue the gap between 75 and 78's regular season's is bigger than whatever advantage in the postseason that 78 has going for it (both won it all after all).
And 05 being considered better than 08 is fine with me.
As for those who made and lost the Super Bowl:
Got some thoughts on the 79 Rams to share:
The 79 Rams being listed as one of the worst I could see, but I don't know about the very bottom.
They did play at a better level in the playoffs, and without injuries their regular season may have resulted in more than a 9-7 record, and sub par team stats (not awful but worse than both the 2011 Giants and 1970 Colts in that regard). However, I would argue that the teams that Chuck Knox coached were a certain amount better than the 79 team was and simply lost to even better teams. Those Rams played seasons that were better by record and stats, and lost to the Cowboys and Vikings in six consecutive seasons; arguably better Cowboy and Viking teams than any team in the 1979 NFC.
The NFC was 16-36 vs its corresponding AFC, a win percentage of 30.77%, the worst ever since the merger for one conference vs the other.
The Cowboys team that the 79 squad beat still had a fifth ranked offense with Roger Staubach still playing great (though he was 37 and in his last year) as well as Tony Dorsett. However they had a defense that wasn't even in the top ten, and the 79 Cowboys were the top seed with an 11-5 record and a worse point differential than the 79 Patriots who missed the playoffs on the AFC side (not that they were a worse team than the Pats that year, but I do think that is worth noting).
The Rams beat the Cowboys, and they proceeded to beat the Bucs in the NFC Championship Game (a team with an excellent first ranked defense, but a rather mediocre to bad offense that ranked 21st). I think it says something about the NFC of 79 that the Rams played a better regular season in 1980, ran into the Cowboys with Danny White starting, and lost to the Cowboys in 1980.
79 Rams were a solid team, and I don't know about the last spot for them, but I do think the conference they got out of is worth acknowledging. I would also argue that some of Chuck Knox's teams could've made the Super Bowl out of that 79 conference if you inserted them, but that's just me.
As for the 1998 Falcons, they should not be 14th. I would agree that that is a bit too high. My hunch would be somewhere in the 20's (maybe 22nd or 23rd).
While we are on the Falcons, the 2016 team should arguably be higher than 43rd as well. That one had an amazing offensive team, and if you want to talk about units stepping up in the playoffs, their defense played pretty well in the games against Seattle and Green Bay as well. However, simultaneously, that team in aggregate had a worse defense than people seem to remember (it ranked 27th by points, and 25th by yards), and given that the 1998 team won one more game, and was fourth on both sides of the ball by points (and still top ten by yards on both sides), I would rank 98 ahead of 2016.
What would have been interesting would be if the 2012 Falcons (who had a top five defense and top ten offense by points) had beaten the 49ers and made the Super Bowl and played the Ravens (who I'd say were worse than New England in 2016). That was the most well rounded team Atlanta had with Matt Ryan in my opinion, and they also had better receivers around Julio Jones and a better defense than 2016 had I'd say.
Miami in 84 and Washington in 83 I could see both being at around 9 or 10 or so and behind the teams you mentioned (especially the 78 Cowboys who were the best team that season statistically), and I might be inclined to throw the 2013 Broncos within the next five spots behind. All three teams not only had the number one offense, but scored the most points in history up to their respective times, and unfortunately lost the Super Bowl. I would rank it as Dolphins, Skins, and Broncos in that order because Miami had the highest ranked defense of the three (though Washington did set the turnover differential record, and that included getting 61 of those).
And I'd agree that the 2011 Patriots are too high (probably by at least five to seven spots).
Also, one other note: The 2006 Bears are arguably a few spots too high. At minimum I'd take the Niners team we just saw over them.
At least that's what I think. What do you think?
You're welcome, SeahawkFever!
Interesting you pointing out commonality between the '88 Forty Niners and this year's Chiefs. The 'old school' in me places that past Dynasty far above this current, now, KC one; but its something I should have thought of. Each
so didn't look the part deep enough into their respective regular seasons. But SF seemed to finally catch-on weeks earlier, going on that four-game tear before laying down in the meaningless finale whereas, as recent as last Christmas, the Raiders
at Arrowhead dropped KC to 9-6.
Perhaps (and I feel weird putting these Chiefs alongside
this Dynasty as well) this year's Chiefs may resemble the '74 Steelers a tad more. No, Steelers had yet to win a title at all whereas KC were defending-Champs ISO their third Ring in five years, but Pittsburgh losing their third-last game at home to a gritty but not good Oilers team a bit like KC losing to gritty but not good Raiders. Doubt was at an all-time high for each team after each defeat. Bradshaw still not fully capturing the starting spot and Mean Joe almost walking out after witnessing, the following Monday Night, how a contender (MIami) "truly" gets things done (by pounding Cincy, 24-3). But each won their last two games, winning division, setting themselves up for the playoffs and now, unknown to most of the league, #1 there-on-out.
Flipping the '66 and '96 Packers? I don't know. Maybe that Reggie/Brett-led team
was better, yes #1 defense and offense, but I'm going to place that SBI-winner above instead. Generic rationale, perhaps, but '66
beat Dallas, '96 (still)
didn't. Maybe not fair, yes they didn't have their best WR lineup that MNF game, but its also how I historically see that '66 squad. Yes, I of course agree that '62 was the 'Jewel' of the Lombardi Era, but '66 is right behind at 2nd IMO! On an older thread here about the best teams of the '60s, I believe I had '62 at #1 and '66 at #2.
I once opined that Denver, in '96, was actually better than GB. And then, a little later, I
tied both. But some here set me straight. Yes, I now see GB as #1 in '96, but in addition to seeing they play
Dallas in the NFCCG (which, yes, I really do think they would have finally gotten over the hump in such a hypothetical), I still would have liked to have seen a meaningful game - perhaps scheduled earlier - between they and Denver simply to get an even better barometer of analysis (GB vs
Elway instead of against Mus). Both squaring off in Super Bowl XXXI (one year early)...even better! Denver would have given GB a much better game than NE though Pats really didn't play them too bad (a 'close' 14-pt game). Despite Parcells being the stronger HC than Shanny, and having
quite a staff to boot, Broncos were clearly the best in the AFC and matched up so well vs them. Jags sure did the Pats a favor that post-season (and, perhaps, Shanny himself as well - resting/rusting his starters down the stretch)
I place both '89, and then '84, Forty Niners over '94. But the latter is overlooked, perhaps, for nostalgic reasons. I, and I'm sure most, truly see those two '80s champs as better. But, who knows, some of it may be subconsciously not wanting to see a team
without Walsh, Montana, Craig, Lott, etc, as being the 'best' San Fran team ever! And those ugly '94 unis! But they were a machine on offense once they finally got over that Eagles beating 2nd-half at Detroit the following week. And the defense...more than just Prime Time by all means! Just read the roster! Never know. Maybe, underneath it all, unknown to us, they actually
were better; but I say likely not.
Falcons? Here's an old thread from right after that SB megaheartbreak -
viewtopic.php?t=4191
I did opine, at the time, that 2016 was better than 1998. But thinking about it now, you may be right on it being the other way around. It all begins with not judging '98 on the surrounding seasons (which I pointed out even then while still picking '16). And, albeit winning a road playoff the following year, that would be it for Quinn while in Atl. Just two post-seasons, '16 & '17.
Now Mike Smith
doubled that (his first 5 years were winning seasons)! But he's all-but-forgotten. Yes, 2012 a good bring-up! They were 13-3 in 2010 also. 16th in both offense and defense that year; quite middling; and in 2012 they were #8 in offense but
24th in D! Key difference, though, is at least Smith (finally) won a playoff game the latter year along with making the CCG whereas they get butchered at home to GB in the 2010 divisional! Barely showing Seattle the door in 2012, just looking at Russell Wilson and the rest of the team handling that defeat, you just
knew they were going to win-it-all the following year! I don't know what my actual prediction was that off-season if I even made one, but I'd be surprised if I didn't pick them! 2013 Hawks, to me, are thus far the best team this century, and can beat a few respected SB champs from last century as well.
Falcons/Ravens Super Bowl XLVII if Atl holds off San Fran? I don't know. Despite rooting for Atl, those Ravens were
on fire (Ray announcing this being his last year) once those playoffs began! Harbaugh the stronger HC, and Flacco playing over his head as well...he outplays Matt Ryan and still wins MVP thus Ravens still bringing it home IMO.
'84 Dolphins, '83 Redskins, '13 Broncos - good grouping! They all remind me of each other. Not sure, actually, who to place between Mia & Wash. But '13 Broncos beneath both IMO.
2006 Bears...much great things to say about them as was said on that countdown! If they ONLY had, at least,
Cutler! #18 retiring with
just ONE Ring! And that being...2015! Such a
shame that would have been!
Brian wolf wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2024 4:15 pm
Good discussion SeahawksFever, but the Chiefs would have shut down Tarkenton in SB IV just like they shut down Kapp, who had a stronger arm and tried to loosen their secondary in the game.
Thats what I was saying about the Dolphins blowing them out in the 73/74 SB; once the Vikings lost their second SB, doubt would creep into their heads, which made it easier for the Steelers and Raiders to beat them later. The Bills went through the same thing after losing their second SB to Washington. They couldnt overcome a certain mentality, and pressed more against the Cowboys, who didnt have their experience.
All I know is that if Tarkenton would have been at QB for Minny in 1969, what a different mentality/personality that team would have had with Fran instead of Kapp! Maybe better, maybe worse, maybe same amount of wins; but, indeed,
different!
As for "mentality"...good point in your second paragraph, Wolf! You may be right with that! NFL-wise (no, not CFL; see '58, '59, '61, & '62), as legendary a coach he was, Bud Grant simply was not good at closing the deal in a 'last game'/championship game situation. Makes you wonder if Minny, somehow, finds a way to lose vs Cleveland had there been no Super Bowl yet in '69? Just an NFL Championship Game then that'd be it. It's hard to hypothetically twist an actual 27-7 win over Cleveland into...a
loss! So, sure-enough, the Vikings finish
atop the Football World just as the Colts would have done the year before! No one, other than "delusional" die-hard respective Jets/Chiefs-fans,
daring to even
think that Colts nor Vikings
lose in a possible pre-merger 'Super Bowl'!
That, very well, may have set a different tone for Grant and the Vikings in the event of a second 'last' championship game outing later on. Just as his first Grey Cup in Winnipeg may have served him, or as the Bills winning 21 years later may have served Levy & Co for the following year. But then you look at the '83 Redskins and 2020 Chiefs, so can go either way. Heck, maybe Vikings and Bills never even
go back to the Big Game had they each won-it-all in '69 & '90 respectively!
Yes, as you say Bryan, '69 Vikings were not a multi-dimensional team. True. But despite Fran having quite the dynamics over Kapp as a QB, that Vikings team I feel was the strongest of all of Grant's Viking squads. Pure smash-mouth
brute, as exemplified in Kapp's aura/style (he could play linebacker)! That all by itself could have won them a Title! Perhaps just a few adjustments needed to be made. And I agree with others here opining that the Vikings win-it-all in 1970 had Kapp stayed on; this whether Vikings lose to Chiefs the year before ("mentality") or not.