Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Brian wolf wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2026 11:47 pm Despite running the ball better, the 1999 Bucs had a very pedestrian passing attack led by Dilfer/King at QB. Their two leading receivers combined for five TDs. Defense was very strong but a number of NFC team runner-ups were better than they were.

That Bucs offense made the 2000 Ravens look like Air Coryell

7DnBrnc53 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2026 5:25 pm

1. 1998 Vikings

Exactly.

Also, I would have the 1994 Steelers rated ahead of some of the teams ahead of them, like the 1996 Panthers and 1997 49ers.

If either of these bottom two miraculously won their CCG they would easily be the worst SB participant ever.
19. 1995 Colts
20. 1996 Jaguars

Worse than the 1994 Chargers? No way. Jacksonville could have defeated Green Bay. The Colts may have done better against Dallas than some believe, although that wasn't a great team, and Faulk wasn't healthy at that time.

On no planet do the 9-7 Jaguars beat Green Bay in that Super Bowl, but keep banging that drum that the 1996 Packers were somehow overrated despite plenty of evidence that suggests otherwise.

The 1995 Colts were also very pedestrian and were somewhat fortunate to make the playoffs at all, though *someone* had to make it from an awful conference.

Ten Minute Ticker wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2026 4:55 pm

7DnBrnc53 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2026 5:25 pm

1. 1998 Vikings

Exactly.

Also, I would have the 1994 Steelers rated ahead of some of the teams ahead of them, like the 1996 Panthers and 1997 49ers.

If either of these bottom two miraculously won their CCG they would easily be the worst SB participant ever.
19. 1995 Colts
20. 1996 Jaguars

Worse than the 1994 Chargers? No way. Jacksonville could have defeated Green Bay. The Colts may have done better against Dallas than some believe, although that wasn't a great team, and Faulk wasn't healthy at that time.

On no planet do the 9-7 Jaguars beat Green Bay in that Super Bowl, but keep banging that drum that the 1996 Packers were somehow overrated despite plenty of evidence that suggests otherwise.

The 1995 Colts were also very pedestrian and were somewhat fortunate to make the playoffs at all, though *someone* had to make it from an awful conference.

The AFC of 1995 wasn’t as good as 1994

On no planet do the 9-7 Jaguars beat Green Bay in that Super Bowl, but keep banging that drum that the 1996 Packers were somehow overrated despite plenty of evidence that suggests otherwise.

The evidence that says that the Packers are great isn't very good. It is the same stuff used to prop up the 1991 Redskins.

The AFC of 1995 wasn’t as good as 1994

True, but 1994 wasn't that great, either. Shaky conference until 1996, when Denver re-emerges and Jacksonville emerged.

Seems to be a consensus in that '96 Jacksonville at #19 and the '95 Colts at #20.
The top five to me not sure what order:
'90 San Francisco
'92 San Francisco
'94 Dallas
'98 Minnesota
'99 Jacksonville

7DnBrnc53 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2026 9:57 am

On no planet do the 9-7 Jaguars beat Green Bay in that Super Bowl, but keep banging that drum that the 1996 Packers were somehow overrated despite plenty of evidence that suggests otherwise.

The evidence that says that the Packers are great isn't very good. It is the same stuff used to prop up the 1991 Redskins.

The AFC of 1995 wasn’t as good as 1994

True, but 1994 wasn't that great, either. Shaky conference until 1996, when Denver re-emerges and Jacksonville emerged.

1994 had 5 10-win AFC teams compared to 1995's 3. The NFC was a shaky 2 team conference after the Redskins/Giants aged out

1994 had 5 10-win AFC teams compared to 1995's 3.

Two of those five-win teams, San Diego and Cleveland, were one-hit wonders for different reasons. The Chargers were exposed as an average team, and the Browns had the move to deal with and an evil owner who should have been blocked by the NFL and been forced to sell (he was a horrible businessman who shouldn't have been running a lemonade stand).

The NFC was a shaky 2 team conference after the Redskins/Giants aged out

Agreed. The 90's Cowboys and 49ers were overrated teams who declined as the decade went on (I know that SF had good records in the late-90's, but that was a product of the NFC Worst and playing against crappy QB's like Danny Wuerffel, Heath Shuler, and Craig Whelihan).

7DnBrnc53 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2026 8:23 am

1994 had 5 10-win AFC teams compared to 1995's 3.

Two of those five-win teams, San Diego and Cleveland, were one-hit wonders for different reasons. The Chargers were exposed as an average team, and the Browns had the move to deal with and an evil owner who should have been blocked by the NFL and been forced to sell (he was a horrible businessman who shouldn't have been running a lemonade stand).

The NFC was a shaky 2 team conference after the Redskins/Giants aged out

Agreed. The 90's Cowboys and 49ers were overrated teams who declined as the decade went on (I know that SF had good records in the late-90's, but that was a product of the NFC Worst and playing against crappy QB's like Danny Wuerffel, Heath Shuler, and Craig Whelihan).

Two things:

1. Were the Chargers better in 1992 than 1994? That one was also a playoff team with some of the same players if I recall correctly.

And 2. Is it fair to say that after 1995 (the last season where either San Francisco or Dallas made the Super Bowl in that time) that those two teams got older and started to feel the effects of free agency and the salary cap more thereafter?

I recall reading quotes saying that the 49ers signed a bunch of guys to one and two year deals before 94, and 95 was the second year of that, and Dallas won it all in 95 and then never played well enough in the regular season to get a bye, or made it past the Divisional round again with that group.

Not saying those two aren’t overrated at points, but it feels to me like 1996 is when we start to see top teams like the 49ers and Cowboys feel the effects of free agency and the salary cap more.

Partly evident by the expansion teams making the conference championship games in 1996, and then of course you have 1998 where three of the last four teams standing hadn’t been that far in years (Falcons, Vikings, Jets), and only Minnesota had been anywhere near that in 97.

Problem with ranking conference runner-ups is that your mind gets distorted by what they may have done before or after.

I maintain that the 1990 49ers were wildly fortunate to be 14-2. They were 8-1 in games decided by a possession or less. While that is a tribute to their refusal to lose that kind of record in close games speaks to quite a bit of luck too. They were begging to be exposed and they were in the NFC Championship Game.

But because they came right after the great 1989 team, they get rated very highly. Probably too highly.

The 1998 Vikings are the best conference runner-up of the decade in my mind.

Ten Minute Ticker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2026 10:23 pm Problem with ranking conference runner-ups is that your mind gets distorted by what they may have done before or after.

I maintain that the 1990 49ers were wildly fortunate to be 14-2. They were 8-1 in games decided by a possession or less. While that is a tribute to their refusal to lose that kind of record in close games speaks to quite a bit of luck too. They were begging to be exposed and they were in the NFC Championship Game.

But because they came right after the great 1989 team, they get rated very highly. Probably too highly.

The 1986 Giants won 9 one possession games, one more than SF, yet nobody thought NY was begging to be exposed despite being even luckier in close games.