Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

CSKreager wrote: ↑Sun May 04, 2025 9:21 pm

7DnBrnc53 wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2017 7:43 am I think that they were slightly underrated. Their 86 team gets so much love, but the 1990 Giants were deeper and more talented.

The 90 team had no talent outside of their defense.

What talent and depth did they have?

Ottis Anderson, one of the most overrated RB's of all time

A washed up Everson Walls? Dave Duerson, one of the least impactful Ditka Bears?

It was basically an aging over the hill squad that rode an easy schedule to one of the weakest 10-0 starts in NFL history

Well, at RB, they not only had O.J, but they had rookie Rodney Hampton, Dave Meggett, and Lewis Tillman (who showed flashes later in his career). Also, they had a better O-line and WR core than the 86 champs.

I know its perhaps too much a multi-what-if to even bother exploring, but what-if Parcells doesn't rest on his laurels going into 1987 (properly firing-up the troops), and there's no strike that year; all is normal? It's really tough to tell. Maybe they still have a letdown anyway. But it'd be intriguing to know what would have happened in this given scenario. I wish God could tell me.

And then there's 1988..https://nycsportsnation.com/2022/02/10/ ... 88-giants/

A real close loss to San Fran early on. And that 'Miracle at the Meadowlands II'...did the refs make the right call on that final play? Even so, the Giants won the rest of their games up to the finale. They were still in control of their own destiny. Yes, they and the Jets were a rivalry. And, OC in Pittsburgh notwithstanding, Walton wasn't really a bad HC; if so, he wouldn't have brought NYJ back to the playoffs in '85 & '86 after not being in the playoffs each of the two years prior (sort-of, I'll repeat sort-of, like Mariucci leading SF back to a couple more playoff berths after '99/'00). But the Jets were 7-7-1 and already out. And the G-men, with Parcells, NEEDED to win yet it wasn't to be. '88 was simply a "warm-back-up" but come up just short kind of a year.

Parcells has said that he feels '89 was his best team. With very much respect (hey, Tuna would know better), it's difficult for me to agree. Eagles still sweep them, they again get butchered by the Rams as the year before; and again at home in the divisional round though they at least bring them into OT.

But, as they did the previous year, they give San Fran a nice showing during the regular season (a MNF game). And Tuna and Walsh (or San Fran in-general) was always the contrast-in-styles Chess match! Of course, in the end, the '88 and '89 G-men ended up simply not being good enough to get to a playoff match in the first place with San Fran. They didn't make the playoffs in '88, and they couldn't get past the Rams at home in the divisional round the following year so, sadly, that's that.

However, I do think that they at least would have given San Fran a game (still undecided going into the 4th Q) had they actually met them in either those two years whereas no NFC playoff opponent in either '88 or '89 gave the Forty NIners anything! Maybe the Eagles in '88, like the Bengals did in real-time two weeks later, would have given SF a challenge (as they would in Wk#3 the following season), but that's for another post, perhaps.

In a parallel life...maybe Tuna wins three while with Giants! That '87-thru-'89 gap had some bubbling "if the wind blew just right" potential. And then there's the "had Parcells stayed one more year in '91" which most of you don't think would have made a difference. And you got me swaying there as well. But then the wind blows in another direction and I'm thinking, "Hey, if there still was enough 'Big Blue Wrecking Crew' gas in the tank two years later for Dan Reeves to make Dallas fight tooth-and-nail in the finale for that NFC top-seed, then WHY NOT Tuna making Washington fight tooth-and-nail for the NFC Title hence All The Marbles two years EARLIER (Tuna was 6-0 vs Gibbs '88-thru-'90)??"

You never know. Some of it would depend on Parcells not..."resting on his laurels" as he did in '87. And maybe Belichick not going to Cleveland.

Halas Hall wrote: ↑Sun May 04, 2025 11:33 pm The 1990 Giants did not have flash, but they had talent on offense.

TE Howard Cross - played in over 200 career games

LT John Elliott - started 156 games in the NFL at tackle

LG William Roberts - started 154 games

C Bart Oates - five pro football championships, started 165 games

RG Bob Kratch - started 71 games

RT Doug Reisenberg - started 132 games

TE Mark Bavaro - Hall of the Very Good

TB Ottis Anderson - Hall of the Very Good

QB Phil Simms

FB Maurice Carthon

WR's Stephen Baker, Mark Ingram, and Odessa Turner made plays when they had to.

A bunch of lineman and mediocre WR's.....hat's not talent, that's just a bunch of guys who were overhyped by the NY media that basically made average players into superstars because they looked against a weak schedule

7DnBrnc53 wrote: ↑Mon May 05, 2025 9:53 am

CSKreager wrote: ↑Sun May 04, 2025 9:21 pm

7DnBrnc53 wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2017 7:43 am I think that they were slightly underrated. Their 86 team gets so much love, but the 1990 Giants were deeper and more talented.

The 90 team had no talent outside of their defense.

What talent and depth did they have?

Ottis Anderson, one of the most overrated RB's of all time

A washed up Everson Walls? Dave Duerson, one of the least impactful Ditka Bears?

It was basically an aging over the hill squad that rode an easy schedule to one of the weakest 10-0 starts in NFL history

Well, at RB, they not only had O.J, but they had rookie Rodney Hampton, Dave Meggett, and Lewis Tillman (who showed flashes later in his career). Also, they had a better O-line and WR core than the 86 champs.

Those Giants had no WR's at all. They were basically just an O-Line

SeahawkFever wrote: ↑Mon May 05, 2025 12:30 am Not sure how underrated the 1990 Giants are, but they do show up as the best team that season by my score percentage metric.

That said, given that Simms was injured, and they had to play with Hostetler in the playoffs, I could see why they’d have been seen as an underdog.

Does score percentage metric take for the fact that they scored fewer points than a 5-11 team or that they basically played a very weak schedule?

They were honestly one of the least impressive 10-0 teams

CSKreager wrote: ↑Tue May 20, 2025 8:09 pm

SeahawkFever wrote: ↑Mon May 05, 2025 12:30 am Not sure how underrated the 1990 Giants are, but they do show up as the best team that season by my score percentage metric.

That said, given that Simms was injured, and they had to play with Hostetler in the playoffs, I could see why they’d have been seen as an underdog.

Does score percentage metric take for the fact that they scored fewer points than a 5-11 team or that they basically played a very weak schedule?

They were honestly one of the least impressive 10-0 teams

The formula for Score% differential in short is ((2*(Pass touchdowns + rush touchdowns))+ Field Goals Made) / ((2*Passing TD's+ Rushing TD's)+ Field Goals Attempted + Punts + Turnovers + Failed Fourth Down Conversions)

Essentially the number of offensive scores divided by roughly how many drives they had to work with.

I calculate the total produced for every team’s offense and subtract the total allowed by every team’s defense (for the defense, negative is better), then take the average of their schedule and make an adjustment up or down accordingly.

I don’t include return touchdowns because those aren’t formally scored by the offense, and I don’t count extra points because they wouldn’t exist if the touchdown wasn’t scored, and it’d count the same drive twice.

As for the 1990 Giants, they show up as the best team in the 1990 regular season in aggregate.

The formula for them results in an offense of (+.026) which puts them 12th out of all 28 teams and thus on the 59th percentile of that year on offense, a defense of (-.121) which was the best in the NFL, and not only the 100th percentile for the year, but also the 48th best result out of all defenses since 1941 (before which point punts aren’t listed for defenses and I don’t think I can reasonably estimate my formula).

The schedule adjustment ended up being roughly (-.0022), which in aggregate is slightly easier than average, and 15th out of 28. Their opponents win percentage was just over .500, and ranked 15th by that as well.

These add up to a score% differential of +.1468. That admittedly is very underwhelming for the best team by this formula in a year, ranking 76th out of the 84 teams that show up on top by score percentage differential in their season.

That 5-11 team you mentioned is the 1990 Rams if I’m not mistaken?

For the record, they show up as the 20th best team that season (and thus roughly 29th percentile among overall teams that season), with a mark of -.056.

Their offense does in fact rank higher than the Giants in 1990 (+.036) which ranked 10th and was on the 66.66 percentile for the year.

However the defense of the 1990 Rams shows up with a mark of (+.092) which was the third worst that season (roughly the seventh percentile).

Their opponents were rather tough, netting them an adjustment up of .014 (the seventh highest that season), the same ranking you’d get if you sort by opponent win percentage (.5354).

As I said at the top, I’m not saying the 1990 Giants are necessarily underrated, and just because a unit played well doesn’t mean it doesn’t have flaws. As this thread has pointed out, the running game and targets weren’t anything exceptional.

But I will say that in aggregate the 90 Giants played a pretty darn good season; though they definitely leaned into the defensive side of the ball.

A few other teams that seem to have been like this (on top by score% differential in their respective seasons, but the defense seems to have carried the rest of the team to the accomplishment):

1971 Colts
1976 Steelers
1986 Bears
1988 Vikings
2000 Titans

Not saying those teams necessarily had terrible offenses, but the defense really got it done for them.

The 1990 Giants won 16 games and lost 3. The beat each of the three teams they lost to, with two of these victories in Championship games.

Interesting side note was how many members of their coaching staff served as head coaches:

Parcells (HOF)

Ehrhardt

Hanley

Coughlin (HOF)

Belichick (HOF)

Groh

Crennel

SeahawkFever wrote: ↑Wed May 21, 2025 3:31 am

CSKreager wrote: ↑Tue May 20, 2025 8:09 pm

SeahawkFever wrote: ↑Mon May 05, 2025 12:30 am Not sure how underrated the 1990 Giants are, but they do show up as the best team that season by my score percentage metric.

That said, given that Simms was injured, and they had to play with Hostetler in the playoffs, I could see why they’d have been seen as an underdog.

Does score percentage metric take for the fact that they scored fewer points than a 5-11 team or that they basically played a very weak schedule?

They were honestly one of the least impressive 10-0 teams

That 5-11 team you mentioned is the 1990 Rams if I’m not mistaken?

No, the Falcons

CSKreager wrote: ↑Thu May 22, 2025 6:44 pm

SeahawkFever wrote: ↑Wed May 21, 2025 3:31 am

CSKreager wrote: ↑Tue May 20, 2025 8:09 pm

Does score percentage metric take for the fact that they scored fewer points than a 5-11 team or that they basically played a very weak schedule?

They were honestly one of the least impressive 10-0 teams

That 5-11 team you mentioned is the 1990 Rams if I’m not mistaken?

No, the Falcons

By score% differential, the 1990 Falcons come up as the 21st best team out of 28 (-.05575). On offense, they ranked 22nd (-.0395), and on defense they ranked 18th (+.0162). Their schedule was about as difficult as the one the Giants faced statistically (Giants playing the 15th hardest, Falcons 16th), and a tad higher by opposing win percentage.

The Falcons admittedly scored 13 more points than the Giants did, but they scored four more non-offensive touchdowns than the Giants did, and thus the Giants scored more rushing and receiving touchdowns than the Falcons did (35 vs 32). Non offensive touchdowns of which wouldn't factor into my formula.

The Giants also turned the ball over far fewer times than the Falcons did (14 vs 39), and had fewer drives that ended with a missed field goal (7 vs 11).

The Falcons on the other hand did punt the ball five fewer times (70 vs 75), and played a slightly tougher schedule of opposing defenses.

Not saying the 90 Giants offense would blow anyone away with the personnel on it, and as alluded to earlier, this team clearly leaned into the defensive end, and wasn't amazingly well rounded.

But on paper in aggregate, it looks like the Giants paired a solid offense with an elite defense that led them to a great statistical season and a championship thereafter.