Page 1 of 2
Best 3 Consecutive, Different Champions
Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2018 4:55 pm
by JuggernautJ
The '86 Giants thread got me thinking about them and the '84 Niners and '85 Bears and what an incredible run of three different champions that was (1984-86).
Combined, those three super bowl winners had a record of 44-4 (add in the playoffs and it's 9 more wins for a record of 53-4). And when you look at the scores of the playoff games they were equally dominant (I came up with 278 - 59 scoring margin for those 3 teams).
So, it got me to wondering...
Has there ever been a consecutive three year run with three different champions that might compare to the three above...
First in my thoughts were the initial three (Akron Pros, Chicago Staleys and Canton Bulldogs (27 wins, 1 loss and 6 ties) or maybe three of the four of 1949 Eagles, '50 Browns, '51 Rams and '52 Lions... (so 49, 50 and 51 or 50, 51 and 52)
We don't have to look at records or points scored, however you wish to define the best teams is fine with me... but I would like to hear about 3 consecutive years with different champs...
Can any compare to 1984-86?
What do you think?
Re: Best 3 Consecutive, Different Champions
Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2018 5:42 pm
by Bryan
49 Eagles
50 Browns
51 Rams
76 Raiders
77 Cowboys
78 Steelers
Re: Best 3 Consecutive, Different Champions
Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2018 6:57 pm
by 74_75_78_79_
Bryan wrote:49 Eagles
50 Browns
51 Rams
76 Raiders
77 Cowboys
78 Steelers
Good ones! As well as those mentioned OP.
As for afterwards...though not as strong collectively as any of the trios mentioned so far, ’98 Broncos/’99 Rams/’00 Ravens. Denver the stronger as well as most-balanced link of the three. I’d consider them a ‘2nd-shelf’ NFL great. Same caliber as ’86 Giants, likely-enough even better. Add the ‘Greatest Show on Turf’ and a just as historic defense, and it makes it a good enough trio worthy of mention IMO.
Re: Best 3 Consecutive, Different Champions
Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2018 9:23 pm
by JuggernautJ
The 1963 Chicago Bears, 1964 Cleveland Browns and 1965 Green Bay Packers make an interesting trio.
Re: Best 3 Consecutive, Different Champions
Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2018 11:57 pm
by conace21
JuggernautJ wrote:The 1963 Chicago Bears, 1964 Cleveland Browns and 1965 Green Bay Packers make an interesting trio.
I'd flip that around and use the 1962 Packers instead. Including postseason, they were the best team of the 1960's.
Re: Best 3 Consecutive, Different Champions
Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2018 12:13 am
by Rupert Patrick
1989 49ers
1990 Giants
1991 Redskins
1994 49ers
1995 Cowboys
1996 Packers
Re: Best 3 Consecutive, Different Champions
Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2018 8:19 pm
by JuggernautJ
conace21 wrote:JuggernautJ wrote:The 1963 Chicago Bears, 1964 Cleveland Browns and 1965 Green Bay Packers make an interesting trio.
I'd flip that around and use the 1962 Packers instead. Including postseason, they were the best team of the 1960's.
Duh. Much better.
Thanks.
Re: Best 3 Consecutive, Different Champions
Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2018 10:50 pm
by TanksAndSpartans
I really like:
49 Eagles
50 Browns
51 Rams
It might also be the only case where there were only 3 teams among the 6 title game participants (Rams lost in '49 and '50, Browns in '51).
Re: Best 3 Consecutive, Different Champions
Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2018 10:07 am
by Dirk
1984 49ers 15-1
1985 Bears 15-1
1986 Giants 14-2
Re: Best 3 Consecutive, Different Champions
Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2018 1:29 pm
by 74_75_78_79_
1934 Giants - 'just' 8-5 but did do a
certain thing they would do 73 years later!
1935 Lions - 'just' 7-3-2 but won a division in which
each team was above-500!
1936 Packers - Classic Curly squad! 10-1-1 in a division that included 9-3 Bears, and 8-4 Lions whom they swept!
Rupert Patrick wrote:1989 49ers
1990 Giants
1991 Redskins
1994 49ers
1995 Cowboys
1996 Packers
Good ones as well. Don't know why I didn't think of either of them before mentioning '98-thru-'00. As for the weakest of each link you offer - '90 Giants still a solid, legit champ though they might be a tad beneath '86; 1995 Cowboys an obvious dropoff from '92/'93, likely benefited from SF getting knocked off in the divisional round, JJ's absence showed, but still an extention of a dynasty; still super talented and was at least able to get it done when it mattered most in the end.