1998 Atlanta Falcons- Biggest Fluke in NFL History?

[CSKreager]

Here’s a team that had 4 losing seasons in 5 years but sandwiched in between they somehow made the Super Bowl

Basically they were a 14-2 team that felt like a 9-7 team.

Forget Minnesota: they should have lost to San Fran in the divisional round.

Jamal Anderson was basically the original Larry Johnson (numbers look great because he had a million carries), but Chris Chandler?

Like how did he beat Steve Young and Randall Cunningham?

It felt like they just randomly were good and then turned back into a mirage.

They felt unworthy of the SB and it quickly showed

[Gary Najman]

For me they were the "Over the Hill Gang" 25 years later, with 10 starters between offense and defense over 30 (Chris Chandler, Bob Christian, Terance Mathis, Tony Martin, Gene Williams, Lester Archambeau, Jessie Tuggle, Cornelius Bennett, Eugene Robinson and William White, plus their P Dan Stryzinski, K Morten Andersen and LS Adam Schreiber on special teams). Stil their offense and defense were both top 10 in yards allowed, and top 5 in points scored and allowed.

[Brian wolf]

Fluke or not, 14 wins is impressive and Chandler could play when he stayed on the field. The veterans blended for a great season and Anderson got hot at the right time. Tim Dwight did everything and showed up for the SB but Robinson's arrest hurt their secondary for the game.

The Niners probably should have beaten them but Atlanta got after Young and the Vikings had them until the FG attempt. That miss took the air out of an already suspect defense. It was disappointing that John Randle was never a factor on the Viking pass rush.

[Bryan]

I think you are underselling Jamal Anderson. He was the most agile big RB that I have ever seen. He averaged 4.5 YPC, which was 2 yards better than anyone else on the team. He got 1800+ yards behind a very average OL. That's what stopped Atlanta's momentum in 1999....Anderson controlling the ball was so important to both the offense and the defense, so him getting hurt was a huge loss. I don't think you can really judge the Falcons accurately after their Super Bowl appearance because they basically lost their best player. Anderson came back but he lost all that agility, and then he got hurt again.

As others have said, Chandler was very productive when he wasn't injured (Crystal Chandelier), and statistically that 98 Falcons team looks great on paper. Very well-rounded. One thing that stands out to me is how incredible their run defense was...they had pretty good LBs with Bennett, Tuggle, Brooking, etc. but the numbers they put up are very surprising. The overall talent might not have been at the 14-2 level, but they would have remained a good team if Anderson had stayed healthy, IMO. Not really a fluke. I think in some respects those Vikings teams were bigger flukes....losing to Atlanta in 98 and then the 41 donut game to the Giants in 2000. Ghastly.

[conace21]

Chandler had been very good, when healthy, with Atlanta. The Falcons had started 1-7 in 1997; Chandler had not played in two of the losses, and he was knocked out of four other games (Atlanta lost all 4.)
In the 2nd half of the 1997 season, Chandler finished every game, had a 101 passer rating in that stretch, with 12 TD's and only 3 INT'S. Atlanta went 6-2 in the final 8 games. Chandler's 7.9 Y/A mark over the entire season was good for 2nd in the NFL.

Still, nobody could have predicted that he would surpass that number by such a large margin in 1998. Chandler's 9.6 Y/A was the highest mark the NFL had seen in 40 years. (Kurt Warner would top it two years later.) In the last 25 years Ryan Tannehill and Fitzpatrick both hit that mark (though they're behind Chandler if you round to the nearest hundredth.) Chandler just did a great job throwing deep. His starting WR's, Teremce Mathis and Tony Martin, both averaged over 17 yards per reception. Chandler still completed a respectable 58% of his passes. So Atlanta could pound the ball with Jamal Anderson AND throw deep. A dangerous combination.

Everything just came together that year for Atlanta. They didn't get much from their rookie class in 1998, but some veteran free agents like Martin and Eugene Robinson fit nicely into their roles.

Maybe SF should have beaten them. But, then again, the Packers should have beaten SF the week before, with Jerry Rice's fumble ending the final 49ers drive.

[GameBeforeTheMoney]

Atlanta won something like 5 out of their last 6 in 1997. Add that to 14-2 and that's 19-3.

Several good players at key positions had "career years" in 1998 for Atlanta. Chandler, Anderson, and two receivers over 1K yards. Jamaal Anderson was really good in his day.

[7DnBrnc53]

I felt like this team was solid enough going into the season, and I predicted that they would get a WC berth (never imagined SB, though).

As for the playoffs, it was a miracle that they beat the Vikings, but I am not surprised that they beat the overrated 49ers.

In 1999, Jamal Anderson's injury really hurt, and Chandler missed four games. Also, they didn't have WR Tony Martin, and promising third-year TE O.J. Santiago seemed to regress. Plus, they didn't get much from their rookies. First round DE Patrick Kerney had to wait until 2000 to get playing time (after Chuck Smith and Archambeau left), and I don't know why Dan Reeves drafted TE Reggie Kelly in Round 2.

[conace21]

In 1999, Jamal Anderson's injury really hurt, and Chandler missed four games. Also, they didn't have WR Tony Martin, and promising third-year TE O.J. Santiago seemed to regress.

The Falcons cut Martin a month after the Super Bowl. He was charged with money laundering for a convicted drug dealer. Atlanta cut him days before they would have had to pay him a $400,000 roster bonus.

Alas, Martin signed with Miami, and was acquitted shortly before the season began. He posted another 1,000 yard season.

[sheajets]

I remember going to Week 8 Jets/Falcons that year and just being thkroughly unimpressed. Doesn't help that a 44/45 year old Steve DeBerg started for Atlanta...ɓut I mean they looked beaten as soon as they took the field.

That was the sort of image about them that hardened in my mind, however unfair it was. That was still a good team...they gave me the impression of more an 11-5 team that is solidly good but lucked into a rare 14 rather than 9-7 that managed 14-2 somehow.

They had a lot of good, smart under the radar contributors that didnt always show up on the stats/score sheet (or in places you may look) Tim Dwight. The excellent blocking of Bob Christian. Todd Kinchen. Well coached. I imagine this team also had great veteran leadership and belief in itself in the locker room. Cornelius Bennett, Jesse Tuggle etc

they didnt exclusively feast on the bad and mediocre either. They beat San Fran (x2), New England, Miami. They beat the Giants who were about average that year. But overall...not a tough sched. Pretty damn easy. But credit them for no real regular season slip ups either vs a Saints or not quite ready for prime time Rams

[74_75_78_79_]

I felt like this team was solid enough going into the season, and I predicted that they would get a WC berth (never imagined SB, though).

Going into '98, I was thinking the exact same way. No SB but a surprise playoff outing, at least. I guess it was the strong finish the year prior that resonated with me; and Dan Reeves being HC - good enough to get them to the playoffs already in 'Year 2' under him.

It's very easy to forget that SBXXXIII consisted of two 14-2 teams. Falcons had the same record as Denver; and were just one game beneath heavily-favored Minnesota. I actually did think going into the NFCCG that Falcons would win. They being more-balanced, I thought; or simply Minn being too big-pass-play-heavy. But what did I know? Minn still should have won; it still was an upset. Cunningham didn't play up to par as the game wore on, Gary Anderson picked quite a strange time to not be clutch, Chandler was very close to being INT'd on their regulation-tying drive, and John Randle amongst others were out in OT (shouldn't have gone into OT in the first place).

Just the same, I obviously very incorrectly not only thought that SBXXXIII would still be a good game; but...actually go into...OVERTIME!! I obviously made too much of the Reeves-vs-Elway (and Shanny) "revenge" match! Both sides "familiar" with each other. A perfect chess match (WRONG). And the thing was, I don't really remember in the two weeks leading up a big deal being made of that obvious pre-game story-line. I guess the whole all-season-long Minn/Denver anticipation was real, real hard to substitute. I guess the masses knew all-too better how Reeves really wasn't a good SB-HC and wouldn't get it done as an overachieving dog vs an already-Champ.

Denver were installed as a 7.5 favorite. That half-point was screaming at me! But I ignored it. No, I didn't take the "sucker" bet. I didn't bet at all. But I still thought it'd...go into overtime!

1942, of course, is King (11-0 vs 10-1) when it comes to best combined-record between two opponents in a title game. But as for the Super Bowl, the top-two there were bad games - SF/Mia (15-1 vs 14-2) and Den/Atl (14-2 vs 14-2). Yet 13-3 vs 9-7 (NE/NYG), 12-4 vs 9-7 (Pit/Rams & Pit/Zona), and 12-5 vs 10-7 (Rams/Cin) were amongst the most competitve!

It doesn't necessarily have to be the most-lopsided to be the worst. Just simply being boring and nothing at all that possibly excited you at all for the duration. "Could San Fran score 62 vs Denver?" "Can they, end of game, cover the spread vs SD?" "Could Miami win 24-0?" "Can Legion pitch the goose-egg?" “35 pts in a single quarter, damn!” "Could Big D not Lett-up and make it 59?" "Can Bears make it 53?" "Can they make it...80-0??", etc, is all it takes IMO to not make it the 'worst'-ever! Thus SBXXXIII, Wash/Buf, Oak/Phi simply stand-out with me as among the 'worst' SBs I’ve ever seen because of the “boring”-ness of them all.

That was still a good team...they gave me the impression of more an 11-5 team that is solidly good but lucked into a rare 14 rather than 9-7 that managed 14-2 somehow.

We all know the Parcells saying! Yet as much as we respect it, and agree at the end of the day, we still can't help sometimes but to break that logic when it suits us. Breaking it myself, yes, I agree. Not at all a 9-7 in-guise, but more-so either a 'strong' 11-5 or a very mere 12-4 underneath. Still solid, end-of-day. Maybe not really the best in the conference that year, but overachieved and took advantage of what they had to in order to make it to 1998's very final game! Not a paper-tiger with me.


EDIT - my mistake, I meant...79-0! Didn't they run out of balls to kick for (no net) XPs?