Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

This one is long overdue! Two 10-6s not making it - Bengals & Seahawks - ought to be the first to come to everyone's mind Remember, Bengals - and also Jets - beat 'Hawks; but could they (& Cincy) still get in via unspectacular Niners/Rams? Will some actually place defending-Champ Bears above G-men though they - despite also finishing 14-2 - seemed to have fallen off from just a year ago. 12-4 Redskins or 12-4 Browns? Where do defending AFC-champs/now division-winner Pats rank? Not knowing that Jets would actually almost make it to AFCC, does their slide cost them a spot?

1. Giants... although not by much. LT and Morris were at the height of their powers here.
2. (1a really) Bears... Definitely looked like back to back champs to me until the G men got hotter down the stretch.
3. Redskins... get the nod over the Browns for playing in the tougher conference.
4. Browns
5. 49ers... yeah 5 losses but to teams that were a combined 50-29-1.
6. Patriots
7. Broncos... they did have the head to head tiebreaker over the also 11-5 Pats but 3-4 in their last 7.
8. Bengals
9. Jets... yeah, their 0-5 slide and defensive collapse sinks them down here.
10. Vikings... It seems like I always end up throwing a zinger into these. Win over the Bears and +125 in points scored.

ChrisBabcock wrote: 5. 49ers... yeah 5 losses but to teams that were a combined 50-29-1.

Not to mention missing Montana for half the season. One of those without him was a bad home OT loss to the Vikings, roughly 15 months before their playoff loss to them.

That was the best Giants team I've ever seen, 14-2 despite a poor season from Simms. I don't recall him throwing much in the playoff games but when he did it seemed to be a TD pass. They steamrolled SF and Washington in a crazy windy game on defense, turnovers, and the running game. Then Simms came through when they needed him in the big game.

They had a tough opening week loss to Dallas by 3, and a 5 point loss to Seattle. That's it.

Injuries did have a hand in the Jets fade that year. Still doesn't excuse play THAT wretched. It was kind of surprising seeing them come to life to beat KC in the Wild Card game though, and then their own same ol Jets stupidity handed the Browns a miracle win.

Jets were well equipped to beat Denver in the AFC title game if they got there. Jets had the better running game and more speed on the D line.

How my Playoff Prediction System sees the 1986 postseason (odds of winning the Conference Championship and Super Bowl and round robin record in parenthesis):

1 - Chicago (46,34) (9-0)
2 - NY Giants (39, 29) (8-1)
3 - San Francisco (11, 7) (7-2)
T4 - Cleveland (41, 13) (5-4)
T4 - New England (30, 9) (5-4)
T4 - Washington (3,1) (5-4)
7 - Denver (20, 4) (3-7)
8 - LA Rams (1,1) (2-8)
9 - Kansas City (5,1) (1-9)
10 - NY Jets (4,1) (0-10)

The tie between Cleveland, New England and Washington occurred because the system predicts Cleveland to beat New England, New England to beat Washington, and Washington to beat Cleveland. Otherwise, all teams on the list defeated all the other teams below them on the list. Personally I think Cleveland was a better team than Washington or New England, and would have given the Giants a much better Super Bowl game than Denver did.

For a hypothetical Bears-Giants NFC Championship game at New York, it predicted the Bears to win by two points. In the Super Bowl, It saw the Giants with an 81 percent chance of winning the game and defeating Denver by 12 points.

Rupert Patrick wrote:How my Playoff Prediction System sees the 1986 postseason (odds of winning the Conference Championship and Super Bowl and round robin record in parenthesis):

1 - Chicago (46,34) (9-0)
2 - NY Giants (39, 29) (8-1)
3 - San Francisco (11, 7) (7-2)
T4 - Cleveland (41, 13) (5-4)
T4 - New England (30, 9) (5-4)
T4 - Washington (3,1) (5-4)
7 - Denver (20, 4) (3-7)
8 - LA Rams (1,1) (2-8)
9 - Kansas City (5,1) (1-9)
10 - NY Jets (4,1) (0-10)

The tie between Cleveland, New England and Washington occurred because the system predicts Cleveland to beat New England, New England to beat Washington, and Washington to beat Cleveland. Otherwise, all teams on the list defeated all the other teams below them on the list. Personally I think Cleveland was a better team than Washington or New England, and would have given the Giants a much better Super Bowl game than Denver did.

For a hypothetical Bears-Giants NFC Championship game at New York, it predicted the Bears to win by two points. In the Super Bowl, It saw the Giants with an 81 percent chance of winning the game and defeating Denver by 12 points.

With Flutie quarterbacking the Bears? I don't like their chances...

sheajets wrote:

Rupert Patrick wrote:How my Playoff Prediction System sees the 1986 postseason (odds of winning the Conference Championship and Super Bowl and round robin record in parenthesis):

1 - Chicago (46,34) (9-0)
2 - NY Giants (39, 29) (8-1)
3 - San Francisco (11, 7) (7-2)
T4 - Cleveland (41, 13) (5-4)
T4 - New England (30, 9) (5-4)
T4 - Washington (3,1) (5-4)
7 - Denver (20, 4) (3-7)
8 - LA Rams (1,1) (2-8)
9 - Kansas City (5,1) (1-9)
10 - NY Jets (4,1) (0-10)

The tie between Cleveland, New England and Washington occurred because the system predicts Cleveland to beat New England, New England to beat Washington, and Washington to beat Cleveland. Otherwise, all teams on the list defeated all the other teams below them on the list. Personally I think Cleveland was a better team than Washington or New England, and would have given the Giants a much better Super Bowl game than Denver did.

For a hypothetical Bears-Giants NFC Championship game at New York, it predicted the Bears to win by two points. In the Super Bowl, It saw the Giants with an 81 percent chance of winning the game and defeating Denver by 12 points.

With Flutie quarterbacking the Bears? I don't like their chances...

That's the rub about the late 80's Bears. McMahon was a good QB but was injured a lot, and Ditka kept a lot of QB's on hand but none of them were very consistent. But if Chicago had been blessed with just about any of the other 1986 starting QB's of the playoff teams, there is a good chance the Bears would have had an undefeated season in that window. Marino or Elway or Montana would have been utterly unbeatable with that defense, and I think even the second-tier QB's of that era like O'Brien and Everett and Simms would have been consistent enough to have led Chicago to a 16-0 season. The lack of a stable QB situation cost the 80's Bears at least a second Lombardi Trophy.

Rupert Patrick wrote:

sheajets wrote:

Rupert Patrick wrote:How my Playoff Prediction System sees the 1986 postseason (odds of winning the Conference Championship and Super Bowl and round robin record in parenthesis):

1 - Chicago (46,34) (9-0)
2 - NY Giants (39, 29) (8-1)
3 - San Francisco (11, 7) (7-2)
T4 - Cleveland (41, 13) (5-4)
T4 - New England (30, 9) (5-4)
T4 - Washington (3,1) (5-4)
7 - Denver (20, 4) (3-7)
8 - LA Rams (1,1) (2-8)
9 - Kansas City (5,1) (1-9)
10 - NY Jets (4,1) (0-10)

The tie between Cleveland, New England and Washington occurred because the system predicts Cleveland to beat New England, New England to beat Washington, and Washington to beat Cleveland. Otherwise, all teams on the list defeated all the other teams below them on the list. Personally I think Cleveland was a better team than Washington or New England, and would have given the Giants a much better Super Bowl game than Denver did.

For a hypothetical Bears-Giants NFC Championship game at New York, it predicted the Bears to win by two points. In the Super Bowl, It saw the Giants with an 81 percent chance of winning the game and defeating Denver by 12 points.

With Flutie quarterbacking the Bears? I don't like their chances...

That's the rub about the late 80's Bears. McMahon was a good QB but was injured a lot, and Ditka kept a lot of QB's on hand but none of them were very consistent. But if Chicago had been blessed with just about any of the other 1986 starting QB's of the playoff teams, there is a good chance the Bears would have had an undefeated season in that window. Marino or Elway or Montana would have been utterly unbeatable with that defense, and I think even the second-tier QB's of that era like O'Brien and Everett and Simms would have been consistent enough to have led Chicago to a 16-0 season. The lack of a stable QB situation cost the 80's Bears at least a second Lombardi Trophy.

I agree. It's a shame that many people still believe that without Buddy Ryan the Chicago defense of that time wasn't as good as in 1985.

For the first 14 games of the regular season, the Browns were inconsistent. Had a good number of breaks not gone their way during this time, they might have been staring at a 5-9 record (or even 4-10) at that point. Their most embarrassing loss in their 10-4 start was a 17-14 HOME loss to the 0-6 Packers.

1) Giants
2) Bears
3) Browns
4) Broncos
5) Redskins
6) Forty Niners
7) Bengals
8) Seahawks
9) Patriots
10) Vikings

Yes, Bears looked to repeat at halfway point but home-MNF-loss to Rams, winning rest of way but against weak competition and not exactly dominating, and Giants' better body-of-work down stretch changed all that going into playoffs. Still didn't see their loss to Wash coming but they definitely seemed to fall-off more than their just-one-less-win-than-in-'85 indicates. Though their D was still great, and they allowed less pts than in '85, I actually do feel not having Buddy made a difference; their D lost a bit of that edge/swagger, allowing Schroeder to go ape against them 2nd half an example. That said, yes, they not having a healthy 100% McMahon was main issue.

I'm going to go with 'a win is a win' and place 12-4/5-0 finish Cleveland at #3. Last year's divisional, 8-8 they almost upsetting Dolphins, signaled playoff-regularity for Cleveland to come (thru-'89) as it signaled just the opposite for Miami (also thru-'89). I allowed Denver beating Washington late to determine my next two spots. Had to just barely exclude Chiefs & Rams. I'm with Chris on #10. Burnsie's Bunch, in his first year at helm, a very strong 9-7 squad foreshadowing they being a playoff team the next three years. Jets? No question off this list. Not only lose last five, but each loss convincing. Steelers? If only they played all season long as they did their last nine games.

Fun-fact: Rams' home-win vs SF early in '86 would be the last of such until '99!