The 1996 NFL Season: 30 Years Later

[ShinobiMusashi]

Last Summer I went down the rabbit hole of watching through the 1998 NFL season via Youtube. I had a blast with it(that was the one season that I did not watch any football back then). This Summer I got interested in the 1996 Houston Oilers and it has led me off into a pretty big interest in the whole 1996 NFL season altogether. It's great how much of it is free to watch on Youtube. I am planning to go through and watch as much as I can when I can this Summer so figured I would post a diary type thread to post any thoughts.

Now that it has been 30 years I figured this would be interesting look back. Some questions I have to stir up discussion:

How great were the 1996 Packers historically? Where would you rank them among the 10 Super Bowl Champion teams of the 90's decade? Where would you rank them all time?

How good were the 1996 Denver Broncos that finished 13-3 and were upset at home in the playoffs by 2 year old Jaguars?

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

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)?

What happened to the 1996 Washington Redskins that started 7-1 before collapsing to a 9-7 finish and missing the playoffs?

How do you explain both of the 1995 expansion Jaguars and Panthers making it all the way to the conference title games in year 2 in 1996?

Feel free to post anything or throw in any "What If's" you can think of an lets dissect this NFL season on it's 30 year anniversary.

[ShinobiMusashi]

The 91 Redskins get a lot of flak for winning the title that year in a year where the powerhouses of the decade either were down(49ers) or just too young(Dallas) but I look at this 1996 season where Green Bay ran the table and got to feel like it was even lighter weight. The Pats team that won the AFC did not look as good as the 91 Bills nor did they have as tough of a field of competition in the AFC. I think it says it all that the 2 expansion teams made it to the conference title games. Dallas and San Francisco were both tired and not nearly as good as the previous seasons. Buffalo was at the end of their run and at their weakest point of their 90's playoff runs. Pittsburgh had a down year at 10-6 and weren't nearly as tough as the previous Super Bowl season. Minnesota got into the playoffs but seemed weaker than in 95 with Moon struggling and getting benched for Brad Johnson(they got demolished by a not so great Barry Switzer Cowboys in the Playoffs). There was also an excessive amount of really bad teams it feels like, the Jets, Saints, Falcons, Ravens were terrible. Detroit a playoff team from 95 was also really bad in 96. The Rams and Buccaneers were seemingly even worse than their 6-10 records would suggest(Tampa with the worst offense in the league).

Other than Green Bay being loaded with talent I'd say this season was as wide open as any of the 90's, which was why Carolina and Jacksonville made it as far as they did in their 2nd seasons as NFL teams. I'm curious to know what about Green Bay winning this NFL season was that much more impressive than the field that Washington dominated in 91?

[7DnBrnc53]

How great were the 1996 Packers historically? Where would you rank them among the 10 Super Bowl Champion teams of the 90's decade? Where would you rank them all time?

I know someone who thinks that the 1996 Pack and the 2001 Pats are the worst SB winners of all time (he rates GB so low because he felt that they couldn't run the ball or stop the run consistently).

I don't know if I would go quite that far on the 1996 Pack, but I don't think that they were nearly as good as people think.

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

I don't think that they were as bad as their record. They just needed a coaching upgrade.

[Mark]

How great were the 1996 Packers historically? Where would you rank them among the 10 Super Bowl Champion teams of the 90's decade? Where would you rank them all time?

I know someone who thinks that the 1996 Pack and the 2001 Pats are the worst SB winners of all time (he rates GB so low because he felt that they couldn't run the ball or stop the run consistently).

I don't know if I would go quite that far on the 1996 Pack, but I don't think that they were nearly as good as people think.

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

I don't think that they were as bad as their record. They just needed a coaching upgrade.

The Packers were #4 in rushing defense. While having a lead in most games can help the rushing totals they only allowed 3.5 yds attempt which put them near the top also. They may have only been #11 in rushing offense but that is still decent. That sounds like someone who just doesn't like the Packers.

[Citizen]

That sounds like someone who just doesn't like the Packers.

That's pretty much it. Some folks have such a vendetta against certain teams that they lose the ability to think rationally. I used to curse the '90s Cowboys, but that didn't stop me from acknowledging what they achieved.

[7DnBrnc53]

That sounds like someone who just doesn't like the Packers.

That's pretty much it. Some folks have such a vendetta against certain teams that they lose the ability to think rationally. I used to curse the '90s Cowboys, but that didn't stop me from acknowledging what they achieved.

No, this person is just a very knowledgeable football mind.

[Mark]

That sounds like someone who just doesn't like the Packers.

That's pretty much it. Some folks have such a vendetta against certain teams that they lose the ability to think rationally. I used to curse the '90s Cowboys, but that didn't stop me from acknowledging what they achieved.

No, this person is just a very knowledgeable football mind.

But he doesn't know the Packers ranked #4 in rushing defense?

[7DnBrnc53]

But he doesn't know the Packers ranked #4 in rushing defense?

His reply: The Packers' 1996 LB's rate a C+, which isn't enough for a championship team. And, while Reggie White was still a super-human run defender, there didn't seem to be another Packer D-Lineman who was fully dimensional that year.

Also (this is from me), the Pack played the Bucs twice (22nd in rushing in 1996), Chargers (29th in rushing), Vikes 2x (24th in rushing), 49ers (who were somehow tenth in rushing. Their leading rusher only had 559 yards), Rams (20th in rushing), Broncos (TD had 14 carries for 54 yards, and he may have only played one half because the Broncos wrapped everything up. Elway didn't play), and Bears 2x (16th in rushing).

[Jay Z]

But he doesn't know the Packers ranked #4 in rushing defense?

His reply: The Packers' 1996 LB's rate a C+, which isn't enough for a championship team. And, while Reggie White was still a super-human run defender, there didn't seem to be another Packer D-Lineman who was fully dimensional that year.

Also (this is from me), the Pack played the Bucs twice (22nd in rushing in 1996), Chargers (29th in rushing), Vikes 2x (24th in rushing), 49ers (who were somehow tenth in rushing. Their leading rusher only had 559 yards), Rams (20th in rushing), Broncos (TD had 14 carries for 54 yards, and he may have only played one half because the Broncos wrapped everything up. Elway didn't play), and Bears 2x (16th in rushing).

This is from me.

They played 5 of the top 10 rushing offenses. Since 7 of the top 10 were in the AFC that's pretty good. They played Denver, Kansas City, Seattle, Philadelphia, San Francisco. Also Detroit with Barry Sanders twice.

Who do people want them to have played? It's the same stupid argument as last time. They played a representative number of good rushing teams.

[conace21]

But he doesn't know the Packers ranked #4 in rushing defense?

His reply: The Packers' 1996 LB's rate a C+, which isn't enough for a championship team. And, while Reggie White was still a super-human run defender, there didn't seem to be another Packer D-Lineman who was fully dimensional that year.

Also (this is from me), the Pack played the Bucs twice (22nd in rushing in 1996), Chargers (29th in rushing), Vikes 2x (24th in rushing), 49ers (who were somehow tenth in rushing. Their leading rusher only had 559 yards), Rams (20th in rushing), Broncos (TD had 14 carries for 54 yards, and he may have only played one half because the Broncos wrapped everything up. Elway didn't play), and Bears 2x (16th in rushing).

So it seems like you're veering into a different argument.

This other person rated the Packers low because they couldn't stop the run consistently. That's clearly false, unless he has a different meaning of the word "consistently". The Packers defense gave up 100 yards rushing 4x in 19 games. In three of those games, they gave up 159 yards plus. But even the 1985 Bears gave up 140+ rushing yards in a game 3x.
They definitely were able to stop the run consistently.

You are now arguing that the Packers weren't as good against the run as their #4 ranking suggests. And that statement actually has some merit. (I'd be curious to see what the advanced stats say, from PFF and Football Outsiders.) But you can be right, and your friend can still be wrong. The Packers probably didn't have the 4th best rushing defense in the league, but they were definitely good enough that they shouldn't be docked for it, or called one of the worst Super Bowl champions of all time.

And they also discovered how to run the ball at the end of the season, just when it was getting cold out. They ran for 200+ yards 2x in the final 4 games (including postseason.)