Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Of course both Dallas and San Fran were again the top-2 teams in the league in '95 but who was '3rd'? Both these teams did play in the finale with the 'Burgh already having clinched a 1st-round bye as the Pack needed the win to take the division. Steelers almost won anyway, a Thigpen endzone drop from doing so. Pretty close one just the same. Steelers were better in '94, Pack better in '96, but who was better between both in '95?

The 1995 Chiefs were IMO better than the Steelers.

Hail Casares wrote:The 1995 Chiefs were IMO better than the Steelers.

That '95 Chiefs squad was good. They were a favorite in the first round against the Colts, but were hurt by four turnovers and three missed FGs (35, 39 and 42).

Also, I am not convinced that Green Bay had not overtaken SF in '95.

Agreed, Green Bay's dominance over the 11-point favorite defending Super Bowl champions in a road division playoff game propelled them to another level. IMO they were quite superior to Pittsburgh despite the good fight Pittsburgh gave them in the finale.

Although a hypo-SBXXX between Steelers and Pack would have been competitive, I seriously unbiasedly think the 'Burgh was better; especially in the LBs/RB departments. As I said numerous times already, many of you successfully convinced me that '97 Chiefs were no paper-tiger at all, but IMO the '95 Chiefs were.

74_75_78_79_ wrote:Although a hypo-SBXXX between Steelers and Pack would have been competitive, I seriously unbiasedly think the 'Burgh was better; especially in the LBs/RB departments. As I said numerous times already, many of you successfully convinced me that '97 Chiefs were no paper-tiger at all, but IMO the '95 Chiefs were.

The '95 Steelers may have been better than that years Packer squad in a few areas like you mentioned. However Green Bay was vastly supperior to the Steelers in the qb department and I think the Steelers would have had trouble matching the Packers offense because of that.