Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

If you were to make a "Pillow Fight" of the worst teams to win Super Bowls, who would it be? Only rule is that one team must be from each conference.

Mine would be 2001 New England Patriots (AFC) vs. 2011 New York Giants (NFC). The 2001 Pats by any metric rank very low amongst Super Bowl champions, regardless of whether *that play* was a fumble or not. The 2011 Giants may have been better than their 9-7 record, but they were only 7-7 at one point.

Wild card winners even seem to be better than these two teams. Even the #6 seeds of Pittsburgh and Green Bay were highly ranked in many statistical categories.

What would be your picks? 1980 Oakland, maybe? It's hard for me to think of any worse ones than these.

A truly tough call because you have to admire any team that can survive a season and become strong or tough enough to emerge champion.

The 2000 Ravens rode a great defense but didnt have to face many powerful offenses enroute to their SB victory. It helps when Siragusa can flop on QB Gannon and knock him out of the ballgame.

The 1981 49ers are similar to the 2001 Patriots, got tougher every week with secondaries that played out of the minds. Championships out of nowhere. Both teams couldnt get to the postseason the next year. Hard to call those champions the worst but the seasons could be considered, flukes.

The Jets of course had a great season in 1968 but only because their secondary got stronger, compared to 66 and 67. Their victory over the Chiefs kept them from facing them in the AFL Championship game. Its a testament to their team defense that they could nearly shut out the Colts with Maynard never catching a pass and Namath never throwing one in the fourth quarter of that SB.

The 1981 49ers are similar to the 2001 Patriots, got tougher every week with secondaries that played out of the minds. Championships out of nowhere. Both teams couldnt get to the postseason the next year. Hard to call those champions the worst but the seasons could be considered, flukes.

The 01 and 03 Pats were flukes. The 81 49ers built a good secondary in a loaded 1981 draft, and had the good fortune of adding two veterans that accelerated their program (Hacksaw and Fred Dean). Also, Montana came into his own after having the job all to himself.

7DnBrnc53 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 27, 2025 4:44 pm

The 1981 49ers are similar to the 2001 Patriots, got tougher every week with secondaries that played out of the minds. Championships out of nowhere. Both teams couldnt get to the postseason the next year. Hard to call those champions the worst but the seasons could be considered, flukes.

The 01 and 03 Pats were flukes. The 81 49ers built a good secondary in a loaded 1981 draft, and had the good fortune of adding two veterans that accelerated their program (Hacksaw and Fred Dean). Also, Montana came into his own after having the job all to himself.

If the 82 strike doesn't happen are the 1982 49ers finishing with a record similar to the 2002 Patriots?

A great season for the Niners in 1981 but their young secondary didnt play nearly as well in 1982. Walsh quit running the ball and put too much pressure on the passing offense, which also put more pressure on the defense. In his book, he felt certain players had issues with drugs or sudden fame but couldnt name, names.
The season was just a disaster that he wanted to resign but had friends talk him out of it, by then he had to replace coaches that left thinking he would retire. The team seemed to get back on track once Tyler and Craig came aboard to help the defense.

The Patriots might have been more a fluke in 2001 but there defense was tougher and better once Rodney Harrison came aboard in 2003. He was an enforcer even in practice, though Milloy had been good as well. More a liability in coverage. The offense was tougher than fast despite a plodding running game.
Brady was more a skilled game manager that complemented his defense and special teams well, which is why Belichick favored him over Bledsoe ... fewer mistakes

So this is, really, the 'worst' AFC Super Bowl winner against the 'worst' NFC Super Bowl winner.

Well, as for the NFC...it, sadly, IS those anti-esteemed (if that term can even APPLY to a...World Champion for Life) 2011 G-men!

This said, I can't help but to feel that if this very team (same with 2007) with Tom Coughlin as a HC, mind you (and Eli not quite a stranger to being clutch when need-be) were installed in the only-division-winners-get-in era, that there's a pretty decent chance that they would have won all the games they needed to win to get in.

Of course I'm not accusing them of 'purposely' being on 'cruise-control' in each Lombardi season and only, really, played when they "had" to. Sure-enough, consciously, they didn't want to lose any games at all. But maybe, just maybe, they well-meaning-ly sub-consciously just simply played at their best when they..."had" to. Maybe.

However, 9-7 in a bad division going in, and the horrid stats to boot, has to - fair or not (sorry, fair) - make them generally seen as the "worst" NFC team to win a SB title.

Now AFC? I already opined the '80 Raiders as NOT being the "worst" SB-winner of the '80s...

https://profootballresearchers.com/foru ... 903#p46903

But are they "lesser" than the '70 Colts? I hate to place both these teams in this very same debatable boat. I respect each enough for reasons I've already given. And I do respect the '87 Redskins and, perhaps, still not so sure that I should even place that SBXV-winner above them.

But this IS the least-strongest AFC team to win a SB (someone has to be slotted there) so I think I'll have to leave for you all to tell me. I'm torn. Colts or Raiders?

Or is their ANOTHER such team altogether who gets this 'title' thus pitted against those 2011 Giants??

EDIT - actually looking at both the '70 Colts and the '80 Raiders side-by-side. Ted Hendricks actually played on both! Balt had an over 85 in PD with Oakland at over 60. Y/A the Colts were a +.4, Oakland at just +.1. Balt was 8th & 9th in O and D respectively with Oakland at 16th & 11th. Colts' strength was their passing game though throwing 22 INTs; they had a weak run-game. On defense, they intercepted the ball 25 times while allowing a net passing yardage of less then 5 per play; and they allowed just 6 rushing TDs. Their turnover ratio was a minus-2. Raiders had a turnover ratio of plus-8. Their specialty was being #1 in INT-ing the ball (35) while being #5 in passing TDs allowed. Their run-defense allowed just 3.4 per carry. Following TMT's example from a post just made, I'll include expected W/L as well. Colts at, basically, 9-4-1 with Raiders at 9-6-1.

Seems like Balt has the edge based on all this but Oak's turnover-ratio makes it still tough to call. So, just for kicks, I went on What-if-Sports and played ten games between both at Memorial. Raiders won 7 of those. Then I did the same at Alameda where the series there was tied at 5-5.

Yeah, still a toughie.

PS - In all fairness, I really should at least bring up my own 2005 Steelers in this as well as those 2001 Pats if we're talking about the 'least-strongest' AFC team to win-it-all. It's not as if both were, say, 13-3. They both were 11-5 as the case with the '80 Raiders. And it really just may be that SBXV champ and those 11-2-1 Colts that may each be better than both of those 21st C squads. The thing is with the '05 Steelers is that I actually see them as better than 2008. And the '01 Pats were 'Act 1' of a Dynasty. But just the simple '70 Balt & '80 Oak being from an older, tougher era may very well now take them each off the schneid.

Man, determining the 'worst' AFC team to win a Super Bowl is quite tougher now. And the thing is...do any of them beat the "save the very best for when it truly matters" Coughlin/Eli 2011 Giants? Maybe those Raiders with that 'Just Win Baby' swagger do.

PPS - I guess the...2006 Colts could be, at least, mentioned as well? 2015 Broncos? Or are we going too far?

2018 (11-5) Patriots?? Okay, Colts & Raiders, you can both leave the station. No more questioning. You are no longer suspects.

The Packers in 2010 were nothing to write home about, especially when Rodgers was injured but like the 2007 and 2011 Giants, got hot in the playoffs. Still, the 2011 Giants team makes sense. They needed that win in Dallas to have a chance. The Niners would have beaten them in the championship game without special teams blunders ...

The Raiders started slow in 1980 but hit their stride with Plunkett. The team rallied around Flores and played better defense as the season went on. Got lucky in the playoffs though, with Browns receivers dropping three TD passes and the Chargers unable to complete the comeback in the championship game with turnovers, drops and mistakes. Plunkett played well despite getting sacked six times.

Brian wolf wrote: ↑Sun Jun 29, 2025 6:30 pm The Packers in 2010 were nothing to write home about, especially when Rodgers was injured but like the 2007 and 2011 Giants, got hot in the playoffs. Still, the 2011 Giants team makes sense. They needed that win in Dallas to have a chance. The Niners would have beaten them in the championship game without special teams blunders ...

The Raiders started slow in 1980 but hit their stride with Plunkett. The team rallied around Flores and played better defense as the season went on. Got lucky in the playoffs though, with Browns receivers dropping three TD passes and the Chargers unable to complete the comeback in the championship game with turnovers, drops and mistakes. Plunkett played well despite getting sacked six times.

That's the funny thing, Wolf! I think of the '10 Packers. And then I think of the '87 Redskins. But then I remember that they AREN'T Lombardi winners out the AFC! And that GB team has much to say for them anyway!

Yes, the '80 Raiders really should get away from this! 13-2 finish, did what they did in the playoffs (yes, it could have gone the other way in Cleveland but it simply didn't). Enough said. Lester's eyes (the swagger) in that shot of him kneeling down pre-game warn-ups (stick um or not)! If not Curtis's Colts, at least get Raiders off schneid NOW (get 14-2-1 Colts off it too, 'Blunder Bowl' or not)!

Maybe it IS my personally esteemed 2005 Steelers (have an autographed ball). A 21st C team it, IMHO, has to be just the same.

In regards to the 05 Steelers: they played in an extremely strong AFC unlike the 70 Colts (and had a MUCH higher strength of schedule when you also throw in two NFC North teams that finished above .500)

Remember they HAD to go 11-5 as PIT would have lost a conference tiebreaker to KC had both finished 10-6

They played in too strong a conference to merit " 'worst' AFC team to win a Super Bowl " status

Heck they beat a Bengals team that was 100 times better than the 1970 CIN team those Colts got to face

I agree as well on the 87 Redskins. The 2017 Eagles were on roll but Vegas didnt believe that Foles could get it done in the playoffs but like Hostetler in 90' and Dilfer in 2000, he did.

You mention the Steelers from 2005, 74_75_78_79 but that season came down to Big Ben's open field tackle against Indy in the playoffs! Big Ben probably wont go first ballot but will easily be in the Hall.

Great year for Baltimore in 1970 but this veteran team beat alot of bad AFL teams as well. Knocking Namath out for the year, helped though Miami challenged as well. I still wish I could get a game film or tv broadcast of Baltimore beating the Raiders at Municipal Stadium.