NFL Throwback YouTube channel ranks every Super Bowl winner, and loser in two seperate videos.

[Brian wolf]

Its all subjective theory and conjecture. Its hard to compare different teams and eras. The 70 Colts were champions and beat two of the best teams in football in Oakland and Dallas but the 1967 and 68 teams might have been better. Its still amazing the 1967 team didnt make the postseason despite going 11-1-2 ...

[Bryan]

[
47) 1982 Redskins, 8-1

43) 1974 Steelers, 10-3-1

39) 1967 Packers, 9-4-1

37) 1990 Giants, 13-3

35) 1983 Raiders. 12-4

33) 1981 Forty Niners, 13-3

26) 1979 Steelers, 12-4

24) 1968 Jets, 11-3

21) 1986 Giants, 14-2

18) 1973 Dolphins, 12-2

16) 2013 Seahawks, 13-3
15) 1992 Cowboys, 13-3

13) 1998 Broncos, 14-2

Its hard to tell how these are ranked....is it a talent/subjective who is the better team? Or is it based on some type of statistical review of that team's regular season? I singled out a few teams to comment on:

82 Skins had a run from 1981-1983 where they went 31-3 in the regular and postseason. I think that's pretty good.

So, you can either play Noll's Steelers, Lombardi's Packers....or the 1990 Giants! Which team would you chose?

I'm not seeing how the 83 Raiders dominant postseason run and talented roster is worse than the fluky 1981 Niners.

The 79 Steelers being worse than the 68 Jets or 86 Giants? The Steelers were better passing, rushing, defending the pass and defending the run than both the Jets and Giants.

The 13 Seahawks, 98 Broncos and the 92 Cowboys being better than the 73 Dolphins, who lost one meaningful game (regular season vs. Oakland) in 2 seasons?

[Bryan]

Okay, and here are the Runner-Ups...

10) 2015 Panthers, 15-1
9) 1978 Cowboys, 12-4
8) 1984 Dolphins, 14-2
7) 1967 Raiders, 13-1
6) 1990 Bills, 13-3
5) 1969 Vikings, 12-2
4) 2001 Rams, 14-2
3) 1983 Redskins, 14-2
2) 1968 Colts, 13-1
1) 2007 Patriots, 16-0

Same with the runner-ups...is this related to what the team's regular season performance, or how good they actually were?

So, the 83 Redskins were the greatest runner up, the 82 Skins were the worst champion...make up your mind.

The 84 Fins and 67 Raiders weren't even favored to win in their Super Bowls, ignoring that they both got blown out.

I'm not really seeing the 69 Vikings as a great team, either. Very one dimensional. I think the 78 Cowboys are way too low. They should be in the top 3. That was a well-rounded great team.

[SeahawkFever]

Okay, and here are the Runner-Ups...

10) 2015 Panthers, 15-1
9) 1978 Cowboys, 12-4
8) 1984 Dolphins, 14-2
7) 1967 Raiders, 13-1
6) 1990 Bills, 13-3
5) 1969 Vikings, 12-2
4) 2001 Rams, 14-2
3) 1983 Redskins, 14-2
2) 1968 Colts, 13-1
1) 2007 Patriots, 16-0

Same with the runner-ups...is this related to what the team's regular season performance, or how good they actually were?

So, the 83 Redskins were the greatest runner up, the 82 Skins were the worst champion...make up your mind.

The 84 Fins and 67 Raiders weren't even favored to win in their Super Bowls, ignoring that they both got blown out.

I'm not really seeing the 69 Vikings as a great team, either. Very one dimensional. I think the 78 Cowboys are way too low. They should be in the top 3. That was a well-rounded great team.

Fair to say.

Though for the 69 Vikings, there is something to be said for having been the number one offense and defense in the league for a season. The offense may not have translated into the playoffs (aside from the Browns game), but I at least don't mind them being top ten or five. That team is underrated in my opinion because the Vikings haven't won it all, and the 98 team and the 70's teams after it exist, but they played an excellent season, and should be top ten here (I would also be inclined to argue that the regular season should be weighed a bit more heavily if we are comparing teams that didn't win it all, but that's just me). Also, if not for the 77 Falcons, the 69 Vikings would have allowed the fewest points in a 14 game season.

I said it on another forum here and I'll say it again: If Fran Tarkenton had stayed in Minnesota the whole time, 69 may have been their best shot to win it all with how god their defense played (if they had a number one offense with a decent but not amazing year out of Joe Kapp, then one can only imagine what they could've done with prime Fran Tarkenton).

I would agree that the 78 Cowboys should be above the 69 Vikings though.

[Brian wolf]

Good discussion SeahawksFever, but the Chiefs would have shut down Tarkenton in SB IV just like they shut down Kapp, who had a stronger arm and tried to loosen their secondary in the game.

Thats what I was saying about the Dolphins blowing them out in the 73/74 SB; once the Vikings lost their second SB, doubt would creep into their heads, which made it easier for the Steelers and Raiders to beat them later. The Bills went through the same thing after losing their second SB to Washington. They couldnt overcome a certain mentality, and pressed more against the Cowboys, who didnt have their experience.

[74_75_78_79_]

First off, thank you for taking the time to type all of that down for reference, very helpful.

As for the teams we've mentioned:
I'd agree that the 07 Giants are higher than the second worst. If anything, I think you could argue that the 1970 Colts were worse than both of those Giants teams in spite of their record. They had a very good record, but were average statistically, and I don't see anyone arguing that the playoff wins they put up were particularly impressive.

As for the 15 Broncos, I could see a good argument for higher than 53rd, and same with the 74 Steelers for higher than 43rd. As for the 88 Niners, I would say they should be ranked right next to the Chiefs of this past season. I can't vouch for the Niners during the 1988 season, but I don't recall anyone saying the Chiefs were the best team in the league at any point in the regular season, and both happened to follow it up with a playoff appearance that led to a title.

Also, in the case of the 1988 Niners, if Steve Young is tackled on his run against the Vikings (and assuming they lose), they aren't in the playoffs at all (if that happened then I favor Minnesota to go to the Super Bowl, but that's besides the point).

As for the 1967 Packers, I could see them being on the same level as say the 2017 Eagles. They definitely appear to have coasted at the end of their regular season. Also, while on the Packers, I'd switch the 1966 and 1996 teams in ranking, but that's just me. In the case of the 60's Packers, the best team they ever had was in 1962 in my opinion, and that one isn't going to be on a list like this.

The 1989 49ers should be no worse than sixth in my opinion, and I'd take that team over 84 and 94 personally. 84 should be more like tenth or so, and 94 I'd have in the mid teens. 94 was a great team don't get me wrong (and one that could've repeated in 95 if Steve Young doesn't get injured and miss six games), but I think of that one as about as good as my Seahawks championship in 2013, and the 86 Giants (who are a few spots too low in my opinion).

As for your Steelers, I would say 1975 is certainly the best team they've ever had. I think it says something that the 1975 team scored more points than 1978 in two fewer games and without the Mel Blount rule, and that it allowed fewer points in the regular season (both total and per game), and against a tougher schedule in the regular season too. In 78, the Steelers had a better first two playoff games (and thus better postseason stats overall), but I'm taking 75 over 78, and I'd argue top five for that one.

From a Seahawks fan, the 75 Steelers are one of the most overlooked teams ever because the 76 team gets a lot of retrospective praise for overcoming a bad start (and if they won it all after the season they had, we'd probably call it the best one by consensus, but as is they made the conference championship game and lost there), and because 78 is often labeled the best Steeler team by NFL Films (really good season, but I don't agree personally).

75 isn't much worse statistically than 76, and I'd argue that the fact that that team won it all and 76 lost in the conference championship game cancels out whatever statistical advantages 76 has going for it, and I'd argue the gap between 75 and 78's regular season's is bigger than whatever advantage in the postseason that 78 has going for it (both won it all after all).

And 05 being considered better than 08 is fine with me.

As for those who made and lost the Super Bowl:


Got some thoughts on the 79 Rams to share:
The 79 Rams being listed as one of the worst I could see, but I don't know about the very bottom.

They did play at a better level in the playoffs, and without injuries their regular season may have resulted in more than a 9-7 record, and sub par team stats (not awful but worse than both the 2011 Giants and 1970 Colts in that regard). However, I would argue that the teams that Chuck Knox coached were a certain amount better than the 79 team was and simply lost to even better teams. Those Rams played seasons that were better by record and stats, and lost to the Cowboys and Vikings in six consecutive seasons; arguably better Cowboy and Viking teams than any team in the 1979 NFC.

The NFC was 16-36 vs its corresponding AFC, a win percentage of 30.77%, the worst ever since the merger for one conference vs the other.

The Cowboys team that the 79 squad beat still had a fifth ranked offense with Roger Staubach still playing great (though he was 37 and in his last year) as well as Tony Dorsett. However they had a defense that wasn't even in the top ten, and the 79 Cowboys were the top seed with an 11-5 record and a worse point differential than the 79 Patriots who missed the playoffs on the AFC side (not that they were a worse team than the Pats that year, but I do think that is worth noting).

The Rams beat the Cowboys, and they proceeded to beat the Bucs in the NFC Championship Game (a team with an excellent first ranked defense, but a rather mediocre to bad offense that ranked 21st). I think it says something about the NFC of 79 that the Rams played a better regular season in 1980, ran into the Cowboys with Danny White starting, and lost to the Cowboys in 1980.

79 Rams were a solid team, and I don't know about the last spot for them, but I do think the conference they got out of is worth acknowledging. I would also argue that some of Chuck Knox's teams could've made the Super Bowl out of that 79 conference if you inserted them, but that's just me.

As for the 1998 Falcons, they should not be 14th. I would agree that that is a bit too high. My hunch would be somewhere in the 20's (maybe 22nd or 23rd).

While we are on the Falcons, the 2016 team should arguably be higher than 43rd as well. That one had an amazing offensive team, and if you want to talk about units stepping up in the playoffs, their defense played pretty well in the games against Seattle and Green Bay as well. However, simultaneously, that team in aggregate had a worse defense than people seem to remember (it ranked 27th by points, and 25th by yards), and given that the 1998 team won one more game, and was fourth on both sides of the ball by points (and still top ten by yards on both sides), I would rank 98 ahead of 2016.

What would have been interesting would be if the 2012 Falcons (who had a top five defense and top ten offense by points) had beaten the 49ers and made the Super Bowl and played the Ravens (who I'd say were worse than New England in 2016). That was the most well rounded team Atlanta had with Matt Ryan in my opinion, and they also had better receivers around Julio Jones and a better defense than 2016 had I'd say.

Miami in 84 and Washington in 83 I could see both being at around 9 or 10 or so and behind the teams you mentioned (especially the 78 Cowboys who were the best team that season statistically), and I might be inclined to throw the 2013 Broncos within the next five spots behind. All three teams not only had the number one offense, but scored the most points in history up to their respective times, and unfortunately lost the Super Bowl. I would rank it as Dolphins, Skins, and Broncos in that order because Miami had the highest ranked defense of the three (though Washington did set the turnover differential record, and that included getting 61 of those).

And I'd agree that the 2011 Patriots are too high (probably by at least five to seven spots).

Also, one other note: The 2006 Bears are arguably a few spots too high. At minimum I'd take the Niners team we just saw over them.

At least that's what I think. What do you think?

You're welcome, SeahawkFever!

Interesting you pointing out commonality between the '88 Forty Niners and this year's Chiefs. The 'old school' in me places that past Dynasty far above this current, now, KC one; but its something I should have thought of. Each so didn't look the part deep enough into their respective regular seasons. But SF seemed to finally catch-on weeks earlier, going on that four-game tear before laying down in the meaningless finale whereas, as recent as last Christmas, the Raiders at Arrowhead dropped KC to 9-6.

Perhaps (and I feel weird putting these Chiefs alongside this Dynasty as well) this year's Chiefs may resemble the '74 Steelers a tad more. No, Steelers had yet to win a title at all whereas KC were defending-Champs ISO their third Ring in five years, but Pittsburgh losing their third-last game at home to a gritty but not good Oilers team a bit like KC losing to gritty but not good Raiders. Doubt was at an all-time high for each team after each defeat. Bradshaw still not fully capturing the starting spot and Mean Joe almost walking out after witnessing, the following Monday Night, how a contender (MIami) "truly" gets things done (by pounding Cincy, 24-3). But each won their last two games, winning division, setting themselves up for the playoffs and now, unknown to most of the league, #1 there-on-out.

Flipping the '66 and '96 Packers? I don't know. Maybe that Reggie/Brett-led team was better, yes #1 defense and offense, but I'm going to place that SBI-winner above instead. Generic rationale, perhaps, but '66 beat Dallas, '96 (still) didn't. Maybe not fair, yes they didn't have their best WR lineup that MNF game, but its also how I historically see that '66 squad. Yes, I of course agree that '62 was the 'Jewel' of the Lombardi Era, but '66 is right behind at 2nd IMO! On an older thread here about the best teams of the '60s, I believe I had '62 at #1 and '66 at #2.

I once opined that Denver, in '96, was actually better than GB. And then, a little later, I tied both. But some here set me straight. Yes, I now see GB as #1 in '96, but in addition to seeing they play Dallas in the NFCCG (which, yes, I really do think they would have finally gotten over the hump in such a hypothetical), I still would have liked to have seen a meaningful game - perhaps scheduled earlier - between they and Denver simply to get an even better barometer of analysis (GB vs Elway instead of against Mus). Both squaring off in Super Bowl XXXI (one year early)...even better! Denver would have given GB a much better game than NE though Pats really didn't play them too bad (a 'close' 14-pt game). Despite Parcells being the stronger HC than Shanny, and having quite a staff to boot, Broncos were clearly the best in the AFC and matched up so well vs them. Jags sure did the Pats a favor that post-season (and, perhaps, Shanny himself as well - resting/rusting his starters down the stretch)

I place both '89, and then '84, Forty Niners over '94. But the latter is overlooked, perhaps, for nostalgic reasons. I, and I'm sure most, truly see those two '80s champs as better. But, who knows, some of it may be subconsciously not wanting to see a team without Walsh, Montana, Craig, Lott, etc, as being the 'best' San Fran team ever! And those ugly '94 unis! But they were a machine on offense once they finally got over that Eagles beating 2nd-half at Detroit the following week. And the defense...more than just Prime Time by all means! Just read the roster! Never know. Maybe, underneath it all, unknown to us, they actually were better; but I say likely not.

Falcons? Here's an old thread from right after that SB megaheartbreak - viewtopic.php?t=4191

I did opine, at the time, that 2016 was better than 1998. But thinking about it now, you may be right on it being the other way around. It all begins with not judging '98 on the surrounding seasons (which I pointed out even then while still picking '16). And, albeit winning a road playoff the following year, that would be it for Quinn while in Atl. Just two post-seasons, '16 & '17.

Now Mike Smith doubled that (his first 5 years were winning seasons)! But he's all-but-forgotten. Yes, 2012 a good bring-up! They were 13-3 in 2010 also. 16th in both offense and defense that year; quite middling; and in 2012 they were #8 in offense but 24th in D! Key difference, though, is at least Smith (finally) won a playoff game the latter year along with making the CCG whereas they get butchered at home to GB in the 2010 divisional! Barely showing Seattle the door in 2012, just looking at Russell Wilson and the rest of the team handling that defeat, you just knew they were going to win-it-all the following year! I don't know what my actual prediction was that off-season if I even made one, but I'd be surprised if I didn't pick them! 2013 Hawks, to me, are thus far the best team this century, and can beat a few respected SB champs from last century as well.

Falcons/Ravens Super Bowl XLVII if Atl holds off San Fran? I don't know. Despite rooting for Atl, those Ravens were on fire (Ray announcing this being his last year) once those playoffs began! Harbaugh the stronger HC, and Flacco playing over his head as well...he outplays Matt Ryan and still wins MVP thus Ravens still bringing it home IMO.

'84 Dolphins, '83 Redskins, '13 Broncos - good grouping! They all remind me of each other. Not sure, actually, who to place between Mia & Wash. But '13 Broncos beneath both IMO.

2006 Bears...much great things to say about them as was said on that countdown! If they ONLY had, at least, Cutler! #18 retiring with just ONE Ring! And that being...2015! Such a shame that would have been!

Good discussion SeahawksFever, but the Chiefs would have shut down Tarkenton in SB IV just like they shut down Kapp, who had a stronger arm and tried to loosen their secondary in the game.

Thats what I was saying about the Dolphins blowing them out in the 73/74 SB; once the Vikings lost their second SB, doubt would creep into their heads, which made it easier for the Steelers and Raiders to beat them later. The Bills went through the same thing after losing their second SB to Washington. They couldnt overcome a certain mentality, and pressed more against the Cowboys, who didnt have their experience.

All I know is that if Tarkenton would have been at QB for Minny in 1969, what a different mentality/personality that team would have had with Fran instead of Kapp! Maybe better, maybe worse, maybe same amount of wins; but, indeed, different!

As for "mentality"...good point in your second paragraph, Wolf! You may be right with that! NFL-wise (no, not CFL; see '58, '59, '61, & '62), as legendary a coach he was, Bud Grant simply was not good at closing the deal in a 'last game'/championship game situation. Makes you wonder if Minny, somehow, finds a way to lose vs Cleveland had there been no Super Bowl yet in '69? Just an NFL Championship Game then that'd be it. It's hard to hypothetically twist an actual 27-7 win over Cleveland into...a loss! So, sure-enough, the Vikings finish atop the Football World just as the Colts would have done the year before! No one, other than "delusional" die-hard respective Jets/Chiefs-fans, daring to even think that Colts nor Vikings lose in a possible pre-merger 'Super Bowl'!

That, very well, may have set a different tone for Grant and the Vikings in the event of a second 'last' championship game outing later on. Just as his first Grey Cup in Winnipeg may have served him, or as the Bills winning 21 years later may have served Levy & Co for the following year. But then you look at the '83 Redskins and 2020 Chiefs, so can go either way. Heck, maybe Vikings and Bills never even go back to the Big Game had they each won-it-all in '69 & '90 respectively!

Yes, as you say Bryan, '69 Vikings were not a multi-dimensional team. True. But despite Fran having quite the dynamics over Kapp as a QB, that Vikings team I feel was the strongest of all of Grant's Viking squads. Pure smash-mouth brute, as exemplified in Kapp's aura/style (he could play linebacker)! That all by itself could have won them a Title! Perhaps just a few adjustments needed to be made. And I agree with others here opining that the Vikings win-it-all in 1970 had Kapp stayed on; this whether Vikings lose to Chiefs the year before ("mentality") or not.

[SeahawkFever]

The 1989 49ers should be no worse than sixth in my opinion, and I'd take that team over 84 and 94 personally. 84 should be more like tenth or so, and 94 I'd have in the mid teens. 94 was a great team don't get me wrong (and one that could've repeated in 95 if Steve Young doesn't get injured and miss six games), but I think of that one as about as good as my Seahawks championship in 2013, and the 86 Giants (who are a few spots too low in my opinion).

Got some thoughts on the 79 Rams to share:
The 79 Rams being listed as one of the worst I could see, but I don't know about the very bottom.

They did play at a better level in the playoffs, and without injuries their regular season may have resulted in more than a 9-7 record, and sub par team stats (not awful but worse than both the 2011 Giants and 1970 Colts in that regard). However, I would argue that the teams that Chuck Knox coached were a certain amount better than the 79 team was and simply lost to even better teams. Those Rams played seasons that were better by record and stats, and lost to the Cowboys and Vikings in six consecutive seasons; arguably better Cowboy and Viking teams than any team in the 1979 NFC.

The NFC was 16-36 vs its corresponding AFC, a win percentage of 30.77%, the worst ever since the merger for one conference vs the other.

The Cowboys team that the 79 squad beat still had a fifth ranked offense with Roger Staubach still playing great (though he was 37 and in his last year) as well as Tony Dorsett. However they had a defense that wasn't even in the top ten, and the 79 Cowboys were the top seed with an 11-5 record and a worse point differential than the 79 Patriots who missed the playoffs on the AFC side (not that they were a worse team than the Pats that year, but I do think that is worth noting).

The Rams beat the Cowboys, and they proceeded to beat the Bucs in the NFC Championship Game (a team with an excellent first ranked defense, but a rather mediocre to bad offense that ranked 21st). I think it says something about the NFC of 79 that the Rams played a better regular season in 1980, ran into the Cowboys with Danny White starting, and lost to the Cowboys in 1980.

79 Rams were a solid team, and I don't know about the last spot for them, but I do think the conference they got out of is worth acknowledging. I would also argue that some of Chuck Knox's teams could've made the Super Bowl out of that 79 conference if you inserted them, but that's just me.

At least that's what I think. What do you think?

You're welcome, SeahawkFever!

Interesting you pointing out commonality between the '88 Forty Niners and this year's Chiefs. The 'old school' in me places that past Dynasty far above this current, now, KC one; but its something I should have thought of. Each so didn't look the part deep enough into their respective regular seasons. But SF seemed to finally catch-on weeks earlier, going on that four-game tear before laying down in the meaningless finale whereas, as recent as last Christmas, the Raiders at Arrowhead dropped KC to 9-6.

Perhaps (and I feel weird putting these Chiefs alongside this Dynasty as well) this year's Chiefs may resemble the '74 Steelers a tad more. No, Steelers had yet to win a title at all whereas KC were defending-Champs ISO their third Ring in five years, but Pittsburgh losing their third-last game at home to a gritty but not good Oilers team a bit like KC losing to gritty but not good Raiders. Doubt was at an all-time high for each team after each defeat. Bradshaw still not fully capturing the starting spot and Mean Joe almost walking out after witnessing, the following Monday Night, how a contender (MIami) "truly" gets things done (by pounding Cincy, 24-3). But each won their last two games, winning division, setting themselves up for the playoffs and now, unknown to most of the league, #1 there-on-out.

Flipping the '66 and '96 Packers? I don't know. Maybe that Reggie/Brett-led team was better, yes #1 defense and offense, but I'm going to place that SBI-winner above instead. Generic rationale, perhaps, but '66 beat Dallas, '96 (still) didn't. Maybe not fair, yes they didn't have their best WR lineup that MNF game, but its also how I historically see that '66 squad. Yes, I of course agree that '62 was the 'Jewel' of the Lombardi Era, but '66 is right behind at 2nd IMO! On an older thread here about the best teams of the '60s, I believe I had '62 at #1 and '66 at #2.

I once opined that Denver, in '96, was actually better than GB. And then, a little later, I tied both. But some here set me straight. Yes, I now see GB as #1 in '96, but in addition to seeing they play Dallas in the NFCCG (which, yes, I really do think they would have finally gotten over the hump in such a hypothetical), I still would have liked to have seen a meaningful game - perhaps scheduled earlier - between they and Denver simply to get an even better barometer of analysis (GB vs Elway instead of against Mus). Both squaring off in Super Bowl XXXI (one year early)...even better! Denver would have given GB a much better game than NE though Pats really didn't play them too bad (a 'close' 14-pt game). Despite Parcells being the stronger HC than Shanny, and having quite a staff to boot, Broncos were clearly the best in the AFC and matched up so well vs them. Jags sure did the Pats a favor that post-season (and, perhaps, Shanny himself as well - resting/rusting his starters down the stretch)

I place both '89, and then '84, Forty Niners over '94. But the latter is overlooked, perhaps, for nostalgic reasons. I, and I'm sure most, truly see those two '80s champs as better. But, who knows, some of it may be subconsciously not wanting to see a team without Walsh, Montana, Craig, Lott, etc, as being the 'best' San Fran team ever! And those ugly '94 unis! But they were a machine on offense once they finally got over that Eagles beating 2nd-half at Detroit the following week. And the defense...more than just Prime Time by all means! Just read the roster! Never know. Maybe, underneath it all, unknown to us, they actually were better; but I say likely not.

Falcons? Here's an old thread from right after that SB megaheartbreak - viewtopic.php?t=4191

I did opine, at the time, that 2016 was better than 1998. But thinking about it now, you may be right on it being the other way around. It all begins with not judging '98 on the surrounding seasons (which I pointed out even then while still picking '16). And, albeit winning a road playoff the following year, that would be it for Quinn while in Atl. Just two post-seasons, '16 & '17.

Now Mike Smith doubled that (his first 5 years were winning seasons)! But he's all-but-forgotten. Yes, 2012 a good bring-up! They were 13-3 in 2010 also. 16th in both offense and defense that year; quite middling; and in 2012 they were #8 in offense but 24th in D! Key difference, though, is at least Smith (finally) won a playoff game the latter year along with making the CCG whereas they get butchered at home to GB in the 2010 divisional! Barely showing Seattle the door in 2012, just looking at Russell Wilson and the rest of the team handling that defeat, you just knew they were going to win-it-all the following year! I don't know what my actual prediction was that off-season if I even made one, but I'd be surprised if I didn't pick them! 2013 Hawks, to me, are thus far the best team this century, and can beat a few respected SB champs from last century as well.

Falcons/Ravens Super Bowl XLVII if Atl holds off San Fran? I don't know. Despite rooting for Atl, those Ravens were on fire (Ray announcing this being his last year) once those playoffs began! Harbaugh the stronger HC, and Flacco playing over his head as well...he outplays Matt Ryan and still wins MVP thus Ravens still bringing it home IMO.

'84 Dolphins, '83 Redskins, '13 Broncos - good grouping! They all remind me of each other. Not sure, actually, who to place between Mia & Wash. But '13 Broncos beneath both IMO.

2006 Bears...much great things to say about them as was said on that countdown! If they ONLY had, at least, Cutler! #18 retiring with just ONE Ring! And that being...2015! Such a shame that would have been!

Good discussion SeahawksFever, but the Chiefs would have shut down Tarkenton in SB IV just like they shut down Kapp, who had a stronger arm and tried to loosen their secondary in the game.

Thats what I was saying about the Dolphins blowing them out in the 73/74 SB; once the Vikings lost their second SB, doubt would creep into their heads, which made it easier for the Steelers and Raiders to beat them later. The Bills went through the same thing after losing their second SB to Washington. They couldnt overcome a certain mentality, and pressed more against the Cowboys, who didnt have their experience.

All I know is that if Tarkenton would have been at QB for Minny in 1969, what a different mentality/personality that team would have had with Fran instead of Kapp! Maybe better, maybe worse, maybe same amount of wins; but, indeed, different!

As for "mentality"...good point in your second paragraph, Wolf! You may be right with that! NFL-wise (no, not CFL; see '58, '59, '61, & '62), as legendary a coach he was, Bud Grant simply was not good at closing the deal in a 'last game'/championship game situation. Makes you wonder if Minny, somehow, finds a way to lose vs Cleveland had there been no Super Bowl yet in '69? Just an NFL Championship Game then that'd be it. It's hard to hypothetically twist an actual 27-7 win over Cleveland into...a loss! So, sure-enough, the Vikings finish atop the Football World just as the Colts would have done the year before! No one, other than "delusional" die-hard respective Jets/Chiefs-fans, daring to even think that Colts nor Vikings lose in a possible pre-merger 'Super Bowl'!

That, very well, may have set a different tone for Grant and the Vikings in the event of a second 'last' championship game outing later on. Just as his first Grey Cup in Winnipeg may have served him, or as the Bills winning 21 years later may have served Levy & Co for the following year. But then you look at the '83 Redskins and 2020 Chiefs, so can go either way. Heck, maybe Vikings and Bills never even go back to the Big Game had they each won-it-all in '69 & '90 respectively!

Yes, as you say Bryan, '69 Vikings were not a multi-dimensional team. True. But despite Fran having quite the dynamics over Kapp as a QB, that Vikings team I feel was the strongest of all of Grant's Viking squads. Pure smash-mouth brute, as exemplified in Kapp's aura/style (he could play linebacker)! That all by itself could have won them a Title! Perhaps just a few adjustments needed to be made. And I agree with others here opining that the Vikings win-it-all in 1970 had Kapp stayed on; this whether Vikings lose to Chiefs the year before ("mentality") or not.

Thank you for the reply.

A few other things:
Firstly, regarding the 49ers, I would put 1994 over 1988 and 1981. I wouldn't be inclined to put that one over 1984, and certainly not 1989, but they were an excellent team still.

To elaborate on why I think that 94 team could have repeated in 1995: The 95 team went 11-5 including two losses where they started Elvis Grbac. If Steve Young is fully healthy and plays all 16 games, then the Niners could've gotten the one seed.

If so, they face the Eagles in the divisional round (who I would expect them to beat), and if we assume the Packers still lose to Dallas in Dallas in the divisional round (like they did in the NFC Championship Game), then the Niners face the Cowboys in the 1995 NFC Championship Game for the fourth straight year, and we saw that 95 team beat Dallas with Grbac. If that happens, I favor them over Dallas and Pittsburgh as well. Also you mentioned Deion Sanders, well in 1994's regular season, San Fran had the sixth ranked defense by points and eighth by yards, and in 1995's regular season, that team without Deion ranked second by points, as well as first by yards allowed if you want to use that. They allowed 28 points to the Packers with an MVP Brett Favre (albeit with one score resulting from a pick six).

Merton Hanks, Eric Davis, and Ken Norton Jr. were first team all pros with Dana Stubblefield and Tim McDonald being second team all pros; so that's five AP all pros on one defense if you count second teamers, and Hanks and Norton both received DPOY votes in that 1995 season.

So from a Seahawks fan, that 95 team could've won it all as well. Also, from a Seahawks fan, the 90's Niner uniforms with the red numbers, black outlines, and on white are one of my favorite NFL uniforms ever. I also liked the throwback variant of that one they used this year, so I'd have to disagree with you on that one.

One other question: Do you think it could be argued that the NFC the Rams made it out of in 1979 was down in comparison to the conferences that they lost in the NFC Championship Game or divisional round in?

Also, good observations on the 1969 Vikings. As I said, they are one of the most overlooked if not underrated teams ever because the Vikings have no championships yet, and the 1998 team exists and gets all the attention, if not the other Super Bowl teams with Fran Takenton in the 70's.

[74_75_78_79_]

The 1989 49ers should be no worse than sixth in my opinion, and I'd take that team over 84 and 94 personally. 84 should be more like tenth or so, and 94 I'd have in the mid teens. 94 was a great team don't get me wrong (and one that could've repeated in 95 if Steve Young doesn't get injured and miss six games), but I think of that one as about as good as my Seahawks championship in 2013, and the 86 Giants (who are a few spots too low in my opinion).

Got some thoughts on the 79 Rams to share:
The 79 Rams being listed as one of the worst I could see, but I don't know about the very bottom.

They did play at a better level in the playoffs, and without injuries their regular season may have resulted in more than a 9-7 record, and sub par team stats (not awful but worse than both the 2011 Giants and 1970 Colts in that regard). However, I would argue that the teams that Chuck Knox coached were a certain amount better than the 79 team was and simply lost to even better teams. Those Rams played seasons that were better by record and stats, and lost to the Cowboys and Vikings in six consecutive seasons; arguably better Cowboy and Viking teams than any team in the 1979 NFC.

The NFC was 16-36 vs its corresponding AFC, a win percentage of 30.77%, the worst ever since the merger for one conference vs the other.

The Cowboys team that the 79 squad beat still had a fifth ranked offense with Roger Staubach still playing great (though he was 37 and in his last year) as well as Tony Dorsett. However they had a defense that wasn't even in the top ten, and the 79 Cowboys were the top seed with an 11-5 record and a worse point differential than the 79 Patriots who missed the playoffs on the AFC side (not that they were a worse team than the Pats that year, but I do think that is worth noting).

The Rams beat the Cowboys, and they proceeded to beat the Bucs in the NFC Championship Game (a team with an excellent first ranked defense, but a rather mediocre to bad offense that ranked 21st). I think it says something about the NFC of 79 that the Rams played a better regular season in 1980, ran into the Cowboys with Danny White starting, and lost to the Cowboys in 1980.

79 Rams were a solid team, and I don't know about the last spot for them, but I do think the conference they got out of is worth acknowledging. I would also argue that some of Chuck Knox's teams could've made the Super Bowl out of that 79 conference if you inserted them, but that's just me.

At least that's what I think. What do you think?

You're welcome, SeahawkFever!

Interesting you pointing out commonality between the '88 Forty Niners and this year's Chiefs. The 'old school' in me places that past Dynasty far above this current, now, KC one; but its something I should have thought of. Each so didn't look the part deep enough into their respective regular seasons. But SF seemed to finally catch-on weeks earlier, going on that four-game tear before laying down in the meaningless finale whereas, as recent as last Christmas, the Raiders at Arrowhead dropped KC to 9-6.

Perhaps (and I feel weird putting these Chiefs alongside this Dynasty as well) this year's Chiefs may resemble the '74 Steelers a tad more. No, Steelers had yet to win a title at all whereas KC were defending-Champs ISO their third Ring in five years, but Pittsburgh losing their third-last game at home to a gritty but not good Oilers team a bit like KC losing to gritty but not good Raiders. Doubt was at an all-time high for each team after each defeat. Bradshaw still not fully capturing the starting spot and Mean Joe almost walking out after witnessing, the following Monday Night, how a contender (MIami) "truly" gets things done (by pounding Cincy, 24-3). But each won their last two games, winning division, setting themselves up for the playoffs and now, unknown to most of the league, #1 there-on-out.

Flipping the '66 and '96 Packers? I don't know. Maybe that Reggie/Brett-led team was better, yes #1 defense and offense, but I'm going to place that SBI-winner above instead. Generic rationale, perhaps, but '66 beat Dallas, '96 (still) didn't. Maybe not fair, yes they didn't have their best WR lineup that MNF game, but its also how I historically see that '66 squad. Yes, I of course agree that '62 was the 'Jewel' of the Lombardi Era, but '66 is right behind at 2nd IMO! On an older thread here about the best teams of the '60s, I believe I had '62 at #1 and '66 at #2.

I once opined that Denver, in '96, was actually better than GB. And then, a little later, I tied both. But some here set me straight. Yes, I now see GB as #1 in '96, but in addition to seeing they play Dallas in the NFCCG (which, yes, I really do think they would have finally gotten over the hump in such a hypothetical), I still would have liked to have seen a meaningful game - perhaps scheduled earlier - between they and Denver simply to get an even better barometer of analysis (GB vs Elway instead of against Mus). Both squaring off in Super Bowl XXXI (one year early)...even better! Denver would have given GB a much better game than NE though Pats really didn't play them too bad (a 'close' 14-pt game). Despite Parcells being the stronger HC than Shanny, and having quite a staff to boot, Broncos were clearly the best in the AFC and matched up so well vs them. Jags sure did the Pats a favor that post-season (and, perhaps, Shanny himself as well - resting/rusting his starters down the stretch)

I place both '89, and then '84, Forty Niners over '94. But the latter is overlooked, perhaps, for nostalgic reasons. I, and I'm sure most, truly see those two '80s champs as better. But, who knows, some of it may be subconsciously not wanting to see a team without Walsh, Montana, Craig, Lott, etc, as being the 'best' San Fran team ever! And those ugly '94 unis! But they were a machine on offense once they finally got over that Eagles beating 2nd-half at Detroit the following week. And the defense...more than just Prime Time by all means! Just read the roster! Never know. Maybe, underneath it all, unknown to us, they actually were better; but I say likely not.

Falcons? Here's an old thread from right after that SB megaheartbreak - viewtopic.php?t=4191

I did opine, at the time, that 2016 was better than 1998. But thinking about it now, you may be right on it being the other way around. It all begins with not judging '98 on the surrounding seasons (which I pointed out even then while still picking '16). And, albeit winning a road playoff the following year, that would be it for Quinn while in Atl. Just two post-seasons, '16 & '17.

Now Mike Smith doubled that (his first 5 years were winning seasons)! But he's all-but-forgotten. Yes, 2012 a good bring-up! They were 13-3 in 2010 also. 16th in both offense and defense that year; quite middling; and in 2012 they were #8 in offense but 24th in D! Key difference, though, is at least Smith (finally) won a playoff game the latter year along with making the CCG whereas they get butchered at home to GB in the 2010 divisional! Barely showing Seattle the door in 2012, just looking at Russell Wilson and the rest of the team handling that defeat, you just knew they were going to win-it-all the following year! I don't know what my actual prediction was that off-season if I even made one, but I'd be surprised if I didn't pick them! 2013 Hawks, to me, are thus far the best team this century, and can beat a few respected SB champs from last century as well.

Falcons/Ravens Super Bowl XLVII if Atl holds off San Fran? I don't know. Despite rooting for Atl, those Ravens were on fire (Ray announcing this being his last year) once those playoffs began! Harbaugh the stronger HC, and Flacco playing over his head as well...he outplays Matt Ryan and still wins MVP thus Ravens still bringing it home IMO.

'84 Dolphins, '83 Redskins, '13 Broncos - good grouping! They all remind me of each other. Not sure, actually, who to place between Mia & Wash. But '13 Broncos beneath both IMO.

2006 Bears...much great things to say about them as was said on that countdown! If they ONLY had, at least, Cutler! #18 retiring with just ONE Ring! And that being...2015! Such a shame that would have been!

Good discussion SeahawksFever, but the Chiefs would have shut down Tarkenton in SB IV just like they shut down Kapp, who had a stronger arm and tried to loosen their secondary in the game.

Thats what I was saying about the Dolphins blowing them out in the 73/74 SB; once the Vikings lost their second SB, doubt would creep into their heads, which made it easier for the Steelers and Raiders to beat them later. The Bills went through the same thing after losing their second SB to Washington. They couldnt overcome a certain mentality, and pressed more against the Cowboys, who didnt have their experience.

All I know is that if Tarkenton would have been at QB for Minny in 1969, what a different mentality/personality that team would have had with Fran instead of Kapp! Maybe better, maybe worse, maybe same amount of wins; but, indeed, different!

As for "mentality"...good point in your second paragraph, Wolf! You may be right with that! NFL-wise (no, not CFL; see '58, '59, '61, & '62), as legendary a coach he was, Bud Grant simply was not good at closing the deal in a 'last game'/championship game situation. Makes you wonder if Minny, somehow, finds a way to lose vs Cleveland had there been no Super Bowl yet in '69? Just an NFL Championship Game then that'd be it. It's hard to hypothetically twist an actual 27-7 win over Cleveland into...a loss! So, sure-enough, the Vikings finish atop the Football World just as the Colts would have done the year before! No one, other than "delusional" die-hard respective Jets/Chiefs-fans, daring to even think that Colts nor Vikings lose in a possible pre-merger 'Super Bowl'!

That, very well, may have set a different tone for Grant and the Vikings in the event of a second 'last' championship game outing later on. Just as his first Grey Cup in Winnipeg may have served him, or as the Bills winning 21 years later may have served Levy & Co for the following year. But then you look at the '83 Redskins and 2020 Chiefs, so can go either way. Heck, maybe Vikings and Bills never even go back to the Big Game had they each won-it-all in '69 & '90 respectively!

Yes, as you say Bryan, '69 Vikings were not a multi-dimensional team. True. But despite Fran having quite the dynamics over Kapp as a QB, that Vikings team I feel was the strongest of all of Grant's Viking squads. Pure smash-mouth brute, as exemplified in Kapp's aura/style (he could play linebacker)! That all by itself could have won them a Title! Perhaps just a few adjustments needed to be made. And I agree with others here opining that the Vikings win-it-all in 1970 had Kapp stayed on; this whether Vikings lose to Chiefs the year before ("mentality") or not.

Thank you for the reply.

A few other things:
Firstly, regarding the 49ers, I would put 1994 over 1988 and 1981. I wouldn't be inclined to put that one over 1984, and certainly not 1989, but they were an excellent team still.

To elaborate on why I think that 94 team could have repeated in 1995: The 95 team went 11-5 including two losses where they started Elvis Grbac. If Steve Young is fully healthy and plays all 16 games, then the Niners could've gotten the one seed.

If so, they face the Eagles in the divisional round (who I would expect them to beat), and if we assume the Packers still lose to Dallas in Dallas in the divisional round (like they did in the NFC Championship Game), then the Niners face the Cowboys in the 1995 NFC Championship Game for the fourth straight year, and we saw that 95 team beat Dallas with Grbac. If that happens, I favor them over Dallas and Pittsburgh as well. Also you mentioned Deion Sanders, well in 1994's regular season, San Fran had the sixth ranked defense by points and eighth by yards, and in 1995's regular season, that team without Deion ranked second by points, as well as first by yards allowed if you want to use that. They allowed 28 points to the Packers with an MVP Brett Favre (albeit with one score resulting from a pick six).

Merton Hanks, Eric Davis, and Ken Norton Jr. were first team all pros with Dana Stubblefield and Tim McDonald being second team all pros; so that's five AP all pros on one defense if you count second teamers, and Hanks and Norton both received DPOY votes in that 1995 season.

So from a Seahawks fan, that 95 team could've won it all as well. Also, from a Seahawks fan, the 90's Niner uniforms with the red numbers, black outlines, and on white are one of my favorite NFL uniforms ever. I also liked the throwback variant of that one they used this year, so I'd have to disagree with you on that one.

One other question: Do you think it could be argued that the NFC the Rams made it out of in 1979 was down in comparison to the conferences that they lost in the NFC Championship Game or divisional round in?

Also, good observations on the 1969 Vikings. As I said, they are one of the most overlooked if not underrated teams ever because the Vikings have no championships yet, and the 1998 team exists and gets all the attention, if not the other Super Bowl teams with Fran Takenton in the 70's.

Going into the '95 playoffs, and rightfully confident that my Steelers were going to the Super Bowl, I was assuming it'd be San Fran representing the NFC thus was worried about having to play them in the desert. I think Steelers lose in such a hypo though some here have opined otherwise. Yes, the irony, SF no longer had Deion - Dallas now had him - but Forty Niners with, as you said, Elvis at QB waffles them at Big D! Jerry Rice passionately yelling in the locker room, not just in celebration but also out of anger directed at #21 for leaving them. But, in the end, it's "last man standing" with Green Bay knocking them out of the way with, yes, Atlanta setting it up in the first place.

In all fairness, Dallas may have won the NFC anyway, but Switzer was still ISO his first win against Seifert and I think most likely it doesn't happen in '95 either. Now the following year, Nov '96, which already seemed like years later (Dal 5-4, San Fran 6-3), a different story. A pretty forgotten game between those two, it seems, despite it only being a mere year after both being top-dogs; and also despite it going into...overtime! Yes, 1995 was a perfect opportunity for Steve Young to win it back-to-back and win himself...a road playoff game (I never KNEW that alluded him until very recently here on this site)!

The NFC in 1979? Of course it was weaker than the decade leading up. And taking on a different identity with a few more changes to come within the next few years. With the Vikings not in the playoffs for the first time in seven years, you had Big D at top-seed, but with "just" an 11-5 record. They not only lose to AFC top-dogs, Pit & Hou (a, for whatever weird reason, 'forgotten' Battle of Texas, Stetson-vs-Fedora, Campbell-vs-Dorsett Thanksgiving Day Classic), but they also lose at the Dawg Pound on MNF to the other winning team in that division! 2nd-seed was "out-of-nowhere" Tampa Bay who fell into the playoffs at 10-6, and in 3rd it was again the Rams but at a paltry 9-7!

Here is an old '79 regular season Power Rankings thread...
viewtopic.php?p=16017&hilit=power+ranki ... gid#p16017

As you see, I picked the Eagles and then Washington as the top two NFC teams. Eagles did look the part at first, starting 6-1 and handing the Steelers their first loss Wk#5 albeit the defending-Champs having injuries going in; they had good backups so a credible enough win just the same. But then they hit a three-game-skid, then bounce back on MNF at Dallas to start a four-game tear until facing Dallas again - at the Vet - which they then lose.

On the final Sunday, as Philly beat Houston at the Astrodome in what suddenly became a meaningless game for both teams, Washington (who already beat Dallas weeks earlier along with splitting with Philly) came oh so razor-close to completing the sweep at Big D thus taking the division and home-field advantage! But Captain Comeback, in what would be his Final Masterpiece, had another last-minute 'idea' up his sleeve! Washington now out at 10-6 with Sweetness & Co in as the final Wild Card (second playoff-berth in three years) thanks to...42-6 (+57 to +53)!

Who would have ever seen the Bucs actually beating Philly, even it being at TB?? And that, quite surreal, was where the NFC Championship actually took place (Landry actually a guest there with the NFL Today; "By the way, Happy New Year, everyone! The Dallas Cowboys will be back!").

The 1979 NFL season...still enough '70s with the same contenders showing up for the dance, but a bit of anything BUT with the newbies - Chargers and Buccaneers in-particular along with Seahawks scoring back-to-back winning seasons and Oilers, once again, taking over the Raiders as the Steelers' rivals!

[CSKreager]

The 1984 49ers are WAY too high

They played a very weak schedule

89 OTOH had to navigate a much more rugged NFC

[74_75_78_79_]

What do you all think of the 2000 New York Giants? They seem to get a pretty bad rap. Some Giant-fans, prior to 2011, have said to me that they think they're "the worst team to ever make a Super Bowl". Not sure how much higher they should be on the list of runner-ups, not too much higher, but at least don't disrespect them, I'd think.

Yes, Ravens annihilate them, and Rams beat them convincingly at the Meadowlands mid-season, but they thrept the Eagles, blasted the Steelers late who were surging down the stretch, and...41-0!! A great Fox/Strahan-led defense that was overshadowed by Ravens & Titans, their offense complemented them being above middle-of-pack. No different than any other normal 12-4 team thus shouldn't be seen as anywhere close to..."flukey", warranting a bad rap. I thought the Ravens were going all-the-way the moment they eliminated Tennessee, and I thought it was more likely that SBXXXV would not be suspenseful, but I thought the Giants maybe had a fair-enough shot going in if they spread the field (I wrongfully thought the same with the Raiders vs Tampa Bay two years later).