The 1996 NFL Season: 30 Years Later

[Oszuscik]

Dallas sure declined in '96. But going into the playoffs, I thought they had a fair-enough shot to repeat despite finishing 10-6. This especially after they slammed Minny. That immediate Green Bay squad with Holmgren at helm still had yet to beat Dallas, lost to them that MNF game, would have made for quite an anticipatory NFCCG match-up! I think the Pack would have won, especially with they being at home, but you simply never know.

I think I speak for all Packers fans when I say we felt so disappointed when Dallas lost to Carolina in the divisional round. We wanted the Cowboys at Lambeau Field! That would have been a terrific NFC Championship Game. Alas...

[Ten Minute Ticker]

I’m not sure how much Pro Football Reference’s Simple Rating System is respected here. I’m sure it has flaws, but it does take into account SOS, etc.

I did an experiment using SRS to try to parse and give context to some of the arguments being made here.

I chose the top three SRS teams in each conference to see what the relative spread was from top team to next-best team, top team to worst third-best team, etc. Why per conference? The majority of the schedule is intra-conference so it’s a kinda, sorta fairer comparison.

I could have done this for any era, but since this discussion is about the 1990s, I limited my experiment to that decade.

Here are the results:

1990 - Bills 8.6, Giants 7.7, Chiefs 6.7, Raiders 6.6, 49ers 5.8, Eagles 5.6.
Spread 1st to 2nd (same as Super Bowl) - 0.9.
Spread 1st to top three by conference - 3.0.

1991 - Redskins 16.6, 49ers 10.9, Saints 9.0, Oilers 8.4, Chiefs 6.4, Bills 3.6.
Spread 1st to 2nd - 5.7.
Spread 1st to top three by conference (same as Super Bowl) - 13.0.

1992 - 49ers 11.8, Cowboys 10.0, Eagles 8.9, Oilers 5.5, Bills 4.3, Steelers 3.6.
Spread 1st to 2nd - 1.8.
Spread 1st to top three by conference - 8.2.
Spread for Super Bowl opponents - 5.7.

1993 - 49ers 9.7, Cowboys 9.6, Oilers 7.2, Broncos 5.0, Bills 4.8, Giants 4.6.
Spread 1st to 2nd - 0.1.
Spread 1st to top three by conference - 5.1.
Spread for Super Bowl opponents - 4.8.

1994 - 49ers 11.6, Cowboys 10.1, Packers 6.0, Browns 7.3, Steelers 4.7, Dolphins 4.2, (Chargers 3.6).
Spread 1st to 2nd - 1.5.
Spread 1st to top three by conference - 7.4. Spread for Super Bowl opponents - 8.0.

1995 - 49ers 11.8, Cowboys 9.7, Chiefs 7.6, Lions 6.9, Steelers 4.6, Broncos 3.1.
Spread 1st to 2nd - 2.1
Spread 1st to top three by conference - 8.7.
Spread for Super Bowl opponents - 5.1.

1996 - Packers 15.3, 49ers 8.0, Broncos 7.6, Panthers 7.1, Steelers 5.2, Patriots 5.1.
Spread 1st to 2nd - 7.3.
Spread 1st to top three by conference (same as Super Bowl): 10.2.

1997 - Broncos 10.7, Packers 7.7, Chiefs 8.4, Jaguars 5.5, 49ers 5.1, Lions 4.0.
Spread 1st to 2nd (same as Super Bowl) - 3.0.
Spread 1st to top three by conference - 6.7.

1998 - Vikings 14.9, Jets 11.2, 49ers 10.6, Falcons 10.0, Broncos 8.9, Dolphins 5.9.
Spread 1st to 2nd - 3.7.
Spread 1st to top three by conference - 9.0.
Spread for Super Bowl opponents - 1.1.

1999 - Rams 11.9, Bills 7.1, Chiefs 6.8, Raiders 6.8, Vikings 4.4, Cowboys 3.1. (Titans 1.0).
Spread 1st to 2nd - 4.8.
Spread 1st to top three by conference - 8.8
Spread for Super Bowl opponents - 10.9.

Observations? To the surprise of probably no one, nothing definitive was established!

I think part of the heart of this thread is single-season over multi-season excellence. The 1991 Redskins and 1996 Packers stand out as single-season dominant teams. Obviously, the Cowboys had sustained championship excellence, which is kind of the annual point of it all.

It reminds me of the 1980s NBA. The Celtics and Lakers had the sustained championship pedigree, but the best single season team of the decade was arguably the 1983 76ers. I think they were, for one season, more dominant than any of those Celtics or Lakers teams, particularly in the playoffs.

Doing this revealed some interesting things. The Bills showed admirable grit by overcoming their underlying numbers to get to the Super Bowl four straight times. Only once were they the best AFC team by SRS in that era. Predictably, the 1990 Super Bowl was as even-matched as everyone thinks it was. Also predictably, their underlying weak SRS showed through in the last three Super Bowls the Bills were in.

The 49ers sort of underachieved, at least as Super Bowls are concerned. They could have been as dominant as the Cowboys were. To a lesser extent, the same could be said about the early 90s Oilers.

It gets weird in the late 90s. SRS reveals that the 1997 Broncos weren’t respected enough, but that the 1998 Broncos, perceived (I think) as the better team, weren’t the best by SRS in the AFC and were rated lower than the Falcons in the Super Bowl too. On one hand, that surprised me, but I think the Vikings over-shadowed how good that Falcons team was. That makes it all the worse that Atlanta fell flat on its face in the Super Bowl.

The 1999 Titans were far-and-away the worst SRS team in the 90s to make the Super Bowl. But SRS doesn’t win individual games and they nearly won it all anyway.

As for the ‘91 Redskins vs. ‘96 Packers debate? The Packers were comfortably the most dominant single-season of the decade with a huge spread of 7.3 to the second-best team.

The Redskins had the best single-season SRS of the decade and had far and away the largest spread any single-season Super Bowl team had with a massive spread of 13 over a 1991 Bills team SRS doesn’t love much.

What does that mean? Depends on how you want to interpret the data. Isn’t it always?

The one thing that did surprise me a bit is that the somewhat maligned 1996 Patriots were the third-best “bottom” team in SRS in the decade. So, by SRS, the Packers got a sterner test in the Super Bowl than the Redskins did, which was true not only in SRS, but in how the games themselves played out.

In fact, if you combine the SRS of both Super Bowl teams, the Packers-Patriots Super Bowl was the highest rated Super Bowl of the decade. That surprised me.

[CSKreager]

Does SRS take into account the 91 Redskins basically running up the score against a weak schedule?

[Sonny9]

Does SRS take into account the 91 Redskins basically running up the score against a weak schedule?

Beating the 10-6 Eagles by 23 is running it up against a weak team?
Beating the 10-6 Falcons by 39 is running it up against a weak team?
Beating the 11-5 Bears by 13 is running it up against a weak team?
Beating the 7-9 Steelers by 27 is running it up against a weak team?
Beating the 8-8 Giants by 17 is running it up against a weak team?
Beating the 12-4 Lions by 45 (and 31 in the playoffs) is running it up against a weak team?

Do you take into account your bias with not much to back up your assertations?

[Jay Z]

I’m not sure how much Pro Football Reference’s Simple Rating System is respected here. I’m sure it has flaws, but it does take into account SOS, etc.

I did an experiment using SRS to try to parse and give context to some of the arguments being made here.

I chose the top three SRS teams in each conference to see what the relative spread was from top team to next-best team, top team to worst third-best team, etc. Why per conference? The majority of the schedule is intra-conference so it’s a kinda, sorta fairer comparison.

I could have done this for any era, but since this discussion is about the 1990s, I limited my experiment to that decade.

Here are the results:

1990 - Bills 8.6, Giants 7.7, Chiefs 6.7, Raiders 6.6, 49ers 5.8, Eagles 5.6.
Spread 1st to 2nd (same as Super Bowl) - 0.9.
Spread 1st to top three by conference - 3.0.

1991 - Redskins 16.6, 49ers 10.9, Saints 9.0, Oilers 8.4, Chiefs 6.4, Bills 3.6.
Spread 1st to 2nd - 5.7.
Spread 1st to top three by conference (same as Super Bowl) - 13.0.

1992 - 49ers 11.8, Cowboys 10.0, Eagles 8.9, Oilers 5.5, Bills 4.3, Steelers 3.6.
Spread 1st to 2nd - 1.8.
Spread 1st to top three by conference - 8.2.
Spread for Super Bowl opponents - 5.7.

1993 - 49ers 9.7, Cowboys 9.6, Oilers 7.2, Broncos 5.0, Bills 4.8, Giants 4.6.
Spread 1st to 2nd - 0.1.
Spread 1st to top three by conference - 5.1.
Spread for Super Bowl opponents - 4.8.

1994 - 49ers 11.6, Cowboys 10.1, Packers 6.0, Browns 7.3, Steelers 4.7, Dolphins 4.2, (Chargers 3.6).
Spread 1st to 2nd - 1.5.
Spread 1st to top three by conference - 7.4. Spread for Super Bowl opponents - 8.0.

1995 - 49ers 11.8, Cowboys 9.7, Chiefs 7.6, Lions 6.9, Steelers 4.6, Broncos 3.1.
Spread 1st to 2nd - 2.1
Spread 1st to top three by conference - 8.7.
Spread for Super Bowl opponents - 5.1.

1996 - Packers 15.3, 49ers 8.0, Broncos 7.6, Panthers 7.1, Steelers 5.2, Patriots 5.1.
Spread 1st to 2nd - 7.3.
Spread 1st to top three by conference (same as Super Bowl): 10.2.

1997 - Broncos 10.7, Packers 7.7, Chiefs 8.4, Jaguars 5.5, 49ers 5.1, Lions 4.0.
Spread 1st to 2nd (same as Super Bowl) - 3.0.
Spread 1st to top three by conference - 6.7.

1998 - Vikings 14.9, Jets 11.2, 49ers 10.6, Falcons 10.0, Broncos 8.9, Dolphins 5.9.
Spread 1st to 2nd - 3.7.
Spread 1st to top three by conference - 9.0.
Spread for Super Bowl opponents - 1.1.

1999 - Rams 11.9, Bills 7.1, Chiefs 6.8, Raiders 6.8, Vikings 4.4, Cowboys 3.1. (Titans 1.0).
Spread 1st to 2nd - 4.8.
Spread 1st to top three by conference - 8.8
Spread for Super Bowl opponents - 10.9.

Observations? To the surprise of probably no one, nothing definitive was established!

I think part of the heart of this thread is single-season over multi-season excellence. The 1991 Redskins and 1996 Packers stand out as single-season dominant teams. Obviously, the Cowboys had sustained championship excellence, which is kind of the annual point of it all.

It reminds me of the 1980s NBA. The Celtics and Lakers had the sustained championship pedigree, but the best single season team of the decade was arguably the 1983 76ers. I think they were, for one season, more dominant than any of those Celtics or Lakers teams, particularly in the playoffs.

Doing this revealed some interesting things. The Bills showed admirable grit by overcoming their underlying numbers to get to the Super Bowl four straight times. Only once were they the best AFC team by SRS in that era. Predictably, the 1990 Super Bowl was as even-matched as everyone thinks it was. Also predictably, their underlying weak SRS showed through in the last three Super Bowls the Bills were in.

The 49ers sort of underachieved, at least as Super Bowls are concerned. They could have been as dominant as the Cowboys were. To a lesser extent, the same could be said about the early 90s Oilers.

It gets weird in the late 90s. SRS reveals that the 1997 Broncos weren’t respected enough, but that the 1998 Broncos, perceived (I think) as the better team, weren’t the best by SRS in the AFC and were rated lower than the Falcons in the Super Bowl too. On one hand, that surprised me, but I think the Vikings over-shadowed how good that Falcons team was. That makes it all the worse that Atlanta fell flat on its face in the Super Bowl.

The 1999 Titans were far-and-away the worst SRS team in the 90s to make the Super Bowl. But SRS doesn’t win individual games and they nearly won it all anyway.

As for the ‘91 Redskins vs. ‘96 Packers debate? The Packers were comfortably the most dominant single-season of the decade with a huge spread of 7.3 to the second-best team.

The Redskins had the best single-season SRS of the decade and had far and away the largest spread any single-season Super Bowl team had with a massive spread of 13 over a 1991 Bills team SRS doesn’t love much.

What does that mean? Depends on how you want to interpret the data. Isn’t it always?

The one thing that did surprise me a bit is that the somewhat maligned 1996 Patriots were the third-best “bottom” team in SRS in the decade. So, by SRS, the Packers got a sterner test in the Super Bowl than the Redskins did, which was true not only in SRS, but in how the games themselves played out.

In fact, if you combine the SRS of both Super Bowl teams, the Packers-Patriots Super Bowl was the highest rated Super Bowl of the decade. That surprised me.

Good summary.

The 1996 Pats were a good team, they'd go to the playoffs the next two years under Pete Carroll. Whatever happened to that bum lol!

A lot of the defense was still around for the 2001 team for the Pats and some good pieces on offense. Maybe lacking that one unstoppable skill though.

Bledsoe's two INTs in the first half probably doomed their chances. Led to 10 Packer points. Defense had their moments, at one point forcing the Packers into three straight three and outs. No turnovers though. Desmond Howard's return would be the last score even with a quarter and a half left. I don't know how many SB have had scoreless fourth quarters, not too many I suspect. The Packers had the top pass defense and once Bledsoe had to pass they only got one first down, which is kind of ridiculous.

[CSKreager]

Does SRS take into account the 91 Redskins basically running up the score against a weak schedule?

Beating the 10-6 Eagles by 23 is running it up against a weak team?
Beating the 10-6 Falcons by 39 is running it up against a weak team?
Beating the 11-5 Bears by 13 is running it up against a weak team?
Beating the 7-9 Steelers by 27 is running it up against a weak team?
Beating the 8-8 Giants by 17 is running it up against a weak team?
Beating the 12-4 Lions by 45 (and 31 in the playoffs) is running it up against a weak team?

Do you take into account your bias with not much to back up your assertations?

The Eagles had no offense

The Falcons/Lions were flukes

The Steelers were mid

The Giants aged in dog years

[conace21]

How bad were the 1-15 New York Jets in 1996?

The Jets had a lot of talent, but... coaching matters. Five of their 11 offensive starters were still starting two years later when they made the AFC Championship Game two years later. And among the players who left,

Neil O'Donnell had led Pittsburgh to the Super Bowl the prior year.

Adrian Murrell had 3 straight 1,000 yard seasons.

Richie Anderson backed up Keith Byars in 1998, and was a Pro Bowler in 2000

There was more turnover on defense, but...

Bobby Hamilton was a backup in 1998, and won two Super Bowls in New England

Marvin Washington was a 6 year starter

Hugh Douglas would become an All Pro in Philadelphia

Bobby Houston, Marvin Jones, and Mo Lewis, Aaron Glenn, Ray Mickens and Victor Green all had 9 year careers. Lewis and Glenn would make a Pro Bowl at least once.

Rich Kotite was a bad coach, he didn't maintain any sort of order or discipline, and the whole was far less than the sum of its parts.

What happened to Marshall Faulk in 1996? Just 3.0 yards per carry on a playoff team(he did miss a few games with injuries but still)?

Faulk was badly hampered by turf toe all year, even though he mostly played through it. Over a 2 year period (from mid 1995 to 1997), he had one single 100 yard game. He averaged 3 yards per carry in 1996, and midway through 1997, it really looked like he would end up flaming out, after a fine rookie season. But he got healthy and got much much better. I don't know if he was undisciplined in his work habits for a while, because it's crazy how he went from riches to rags to riches in his pro career.

[Sonny9]

Does SRS take into account the 91 Redskins basically running up the score against a weak schedule?

Beating the 10-6 Eagles by 23 is running it up against a weak team?
Beating the 10-6 Falcons by 39 is running it up against a weak team?
Beating the 11-5 Bears by 13 is running it up against a weak team?
Beating the 7-9 Steelers by 27 is running it up against a weak team?
Beating the 8-8 Giants by 17 is running it up against a weak team?
Beating the 12-4 Lions by 45 (and 31 in the playoffs) is running it up against a weak team?

Do you take into account your bias with not much to back up your assertations?

The Eagles had no offense

The Falcons/Lions were flukes

The Steelers were mid

The Giants aged in dog years

So their offenses and defenses don't count. Nothing to do with what they actually did on the field. Just made up labeling.
It was the Eagles worst defeat
It was the Giants 2nd worst defeat
it was the Steelers worst defeat
It was the Lions worst defeat
It was the Cardinals worst defeat

[Northwoodssportsman]

As it pertains to the Packers' 1996 Season, that was their best season and still is post-Lombardi because of how dominant they were on both sides of the ball. Even though Green Bay went against opponents that weren't world-beaters, you have to beat who is on your schedule.

Detroit still had Barry, who led the league in rushing that year. The Vikings had Warren Moon and Cris Carter offensively, who were able to carry Minnesota to the playoffs that year. The Packers also lost to Dallas, who were the defending Super Bowl Champions and still won the NFC East. San Francisco that year played four games without Steve Young, but still made the playoffs and lost out on a division title to Carolina in a tiebreaker. Green Bay that year led the league in points scored (456) and fewest points allowed (210). The Packers' leading rusher that year was Edgar Bennett, at 899 yards. Favre won his second consecutive MVP and led the league in Touchdown passes. I think an underrated part of Green Bay's defense was their secondary. Their starting secondary was LeRoy Butler (Hall of Famer), Eugene Robinson, Doug Evans, and Craig Newsome. That secondary did benefit greatly from having Reggie White, Gilbert Brown, Earl Dotson, and Santana Dotson on the Line, but there have been instances where a great pass rush doesn't equal a great secondary.

The '96 Packers are probably the best Super Bowl Champions of that decade outside of the dynastic Cowboys. The '91 Redskins are a very close second, and, to me, are often overlooked. If you wanna look at the worst Super Bowl Champions of the decade, why not look at the '90 Giants? They had a ground-and-pound, old-school, defensive squad that carried backup quarterback Jeff Hostetler to a title.

[Ten Minute Ticker]

Honestly, I don’t think there’s a “bad” Super Bowl winner in the 90s. It’s right there with the 70s in terms of quality of champions.