Okay, admittedly, these kinds of articles about the best or most dominant teams are a bit subjective, and you almost always disagree with the person who wrote it on something or other, right?
Recently, though, I ran into a list of the supposedly 50 most dominant teams in NFL history that was just preposterous by it's inconsistencies and total disregard of some teams, an obvious lack of respect for others, and some serious, vastly exaggerated hyping of other (mostly more recent) seasons by teams.
Recently, though, I ran into a list of the supposedly 50 most dominant teams in NFL history that was just preposterous by it's inconsistencies and total disregard of some teams, an obvious lack of respect for others, and some serious, vastly exaggerated hyping of other (mostly more recent) seasons by teams.
There were two glaring examples of this that jumped out at me immediately, although at least these two teams were actually included on this list. The first was the 1985 Chicago Bears, a team that most people in the know, and especially most experts, usually rank either at the top of the list of most dominant NFL teams ever, or very near the top (usually in the top three or so). More on them later. The second would be Washington in 1991, a team that seemed to be historically dominant at the time yet which never seems to get the respect that they earned and deserve. And don't get me wrong: I hated the Chicago Bears in 1985, and still cannot stand Washington's football team. But come on! You have to give credit where it is due.
But this list was just ridiculous on many levels. I mean, Washington had a dominant season in 1991, and were probably the third best team that I ever saw. They were a complete football team, with a very tough defense and explosive offense. The offense was explosive, and often seemed unstoppable. They scored at least 30 points or more 10 times in 19 games, including twice in the playoffs, and scored 40 or more points five times. Meanwhile, they held opponents to 7 points or less six times, and to 14 points or less 11 times. Yes, they were that good on both offense and defense. They started off 11-0, and got three shutouts in their first five games - two of them against very tough teams. They lost two games all season, by a total of five points, and one of those came during what was to them a meaningless final game of the regular season at Philadelphia. They blew out Atlanta in the divisional round 24-7, embarrassed Detroit in the NFC Championship Game, 41-10, and then took explosive Buffalo apart in the Super Bowl, in a game that was not nearly as close as the final 37-24 margin would suggest. They were favored to win the championship by many experts from as early on as the preseason, and set the bar high, showing very few weaknesses in what was truly a dominant season. Yet, they were ranked as the 37th most dominant team in NFL history. The 2010 Green Bay Packers, who finished 10-6, and the 2011 New York Giants, who finished 9-7, were ranked as more dominant. Don't get me wrong, the Giants are my favorite team. But it was not even clear heading into the final game of the regular season whether they, or the 2010 Packers, would even qualify for the postseason. And they rank as more dominant than a team that literally dominated the 1991 season from beginning to end? By what criteria?
Yet, that is relatively minor compared to one of the most glaring lapses that this guy makes. Most people rank the 1985 Chicago Bears as the most dominant team in NFL history, or at least as among the very, very best teams of any single season. But this guy ranks that team only as number 13, in terms of most dominant teams ever.
Yet, that is relatively minor compared to one of the most glaring lapses that this guy makes. Most people rank the 1985 Chicago Bears as the most dominant team in NFL history, or at least as among the very, very best teams of any single season. But this guy ranks that team only as number 13, in terms of most dominant teams ever.
The 1985 Bears only ranked number 13? Really?!
They were the most dominant team that I ever saw, regular season and playoffs. Not only did they start off as one of the preseason favorites, but they got off to an incredible, undefeated start that season, yet they only seemed to get better as the season wore on. They allowed the fewest points of any team in many years, allowing an average of around 12 points per game, while scoring the second most of any team that season. That led to an incredibly dominant average margin of victory which ranks among the best in league history. There are other picks that you have here which I disagree with, but this one was far and away the most glaring. I am not a Bears fan, but damn, give them some respect! Were you old enough to remember them? I'm guessing not, because if you were, you likely would have put them at the very top of the list. They started off 12-0, handed a relatively elite Cowboys team their worst ever loss, 44-0, AT DALLAS! That still stands as the worst loss that the Cowboys have ever suffered in franchise history, and they won the NFC East that season. Yet, the Bears regularly dispatched with top tier opponents that season, more often than not in blowout fashion. They went to San Francisco and dominated the 49ers, who had shut them out in the previous NFC title game en route to their second Super Bowl championship in four seasons. The Bears dominated the New England Patriots in the regular season, and then humiliated them in the Super Bowl. They also dominated another playoff team, the New York Jets, on the road. They crushed Washington, a team that had been to two Super Bowls in recent seasons. During one three game stretch, they allowed a total of 3 points, and their defense outscored these combined opposing defenses during that stretch. In the playoffs, In the playoffs, they shut out my Giants, 21-0, then followed that up with another shutout, 24-0 over the Rams, becoming the first NFL team to record consecutive playoff shutout wins. In the three playoff contests, they outscored their opponents by a combined score of 91-10, and those 10 points total are easily a record for the least amount of points allowed by any team in the course of three playoff games since at least the advent of the 16-game seasons. They made a video basically announcing how great they were well before the playoffs even started, and nobody was able to even come close to preventing them from doing the "Super Bowl Shuffle" at season's end. In the Super Bowl, they destroyed New England, 46-10, and frankly, the Pats were lucky that it was not worse.
The Bears were that scary kind of team that you dreaded having to face. I was a young kid in late 1985 into early 1986, but I remember that they were the kind of team that you just knew were going to win it all. They left no doubt with just how dominant they were, and it cannot be stressed enough just how intimidating their level of dominance as. To me, they seemed kind of like the NFL's answer to Mike Tyson's early career dominance. They were physically dominating, and just had a swagger about them that nobody was able to knock off, save for one regular season game against Miami, when the Bears uncharacterstically had a bad game and suffered their one and only loss of the entire season. Everyone just knew that they were going to win it all from almost mid-season. They easily had the best defense that season, and one of the most dominant defenses of all time. But they also enjoyed one of the best offenses that season, as well, scoring the second most amount of points, right behind the San Diego Chargers of the Dan Fouts era. I never saw a better team, before or since. Sorry, but there are not 12 teams that enjoyed more dominant seasons than they were. In fact, I doubt that there was even one. This extremely low and unfair ranking discredits his entire article, frankly, and I am saying that while not even a Bears fan!
Frankly, I hated the Bears back then. But that was how I came to appreciate just how damn good they were for that one season. It was only years later, once they were no longer anywhere near what they had been, that I began to look back and truly appreciate how special that team was. Prior to that point, which came right around the time that the 1990 season was about to begin, I almost felt it would be bad luck to think about the Bears too much, because it always seemed like a distinct possibility that they would find that form again, and dominate. They never did, but it just cannot be understated how incredible they were for that one season. Frankly, I think that this team deserves to be recognized as the most dominant single season teams in NFL history, and one of the most dominant in sports history in general. Yet, they often seem not to get the level of respect that they deserve. I mean, this guy who wrote this piece, Adam Lazarus, puts numerous teams, including the 2007 New England Patriots, as more dominant than the '85 Bears.
But the thing is that the Bears started off hot, and with that one loss to Miami serving as the sole exception, Chicago basically remained dominant throughout the season. If anything, they were getting even better, showing even more dominance, later in the season, and especially in the playoffs. Two playoff shutouts in a row? Then, crushing the Pats in the Super Bowl in what was then record fashion, and which remains the second most lopsided Super Bowl outcome to this day? So, how can he possibly place them as number 13? To think that 12 teams were even close to reaching the level of dominance that those Bears enjoyed is, frankly, a laughable notion to me. This guy must have a very short memory. I mean, really short. Yes, the Patriots went 16-0 in 2007, and for a while, looked like the most dominant team in NFL history. This was especially true for when they were 10-0, and had dominated certain teams by scores of 52-7 (Washington) and 56-10 (at Buffalo). However, in the final six games of the regular season, and then again throughout the playoffs, the Pats looked much more pedestrian. That is not to say ordinary, and it was hard to forget that incredibly dominant start. But they won games by more normal scores. They beat Miami, the worst team in the league that season, 28-7. They Jets were also bad, and New England got past them, 20-10. They barely got past Philadelphia, a losing team. They got extremely lucky to avoid a huge upset at Baltimore, another losing team. They lucked out again in avoiding a loss at the Giants in the regular season finale. They beat, but did not humiliate or overwhelm, Jacksonville in the divisional round, then really struggled against San Diego in the AFC title game, before earning a hard fought 21-12 win. But of course, the biggest disqualifier in most people's minds would be the fact that they lost the Super Bowl, because then, they were not even champions in that supposedly dominant season. In many ways, that 2007 season was like a tale of two seasons for the Patriots. And if we take the entirety of the season into consideration, from the unbelievable start, with records being smashed left and right early on, to the end, when they were clearly slowing down and not imposing their will on opponents, culminating in a tough win in the AFC title game, and then the shocking upset loss in the Super Bowl, it is hard to make the case that the Patriots that season really were more dominant than the '85 Bears, a team that also started off red hot and smashing records early on, and who finished the same way, sealing the deal with three straight historically dominant wins in the playoffs to secure the title that everyone knew they were going to get months before they officially got it.
My best guess is that he is detracting from their accomplishments due to the strength of their opponents, and furthermore, I am guessing that he is basically saying that they did not have strong opponents. But they played the Giants in the playoffs, an up and coming team that would themselves win the Super Bowl the following season. During the regular season, they convincingly beat the San Francisco 49ers, the defending champions and clearly one of the great teams of the era. They also beat Washington (who had been to two consecutive Super Bowls just a couple of years before). And they beat numerous playoff teams, during the regular season, including New England, Dallas (again, 44-0 in Dallas!), as well as the New York Jets. They not only beat those teams, but they won convincingly in each, with three of those games being road games (San Francisco, Dallas, and at the New York Jets).
Besides, if he were to take away credit from that truly great Bears team for lack of strength of schedule, he would have to do so with some of those other teams that he ranked higher, which he apparently did not. After all, in 1991, Washington had two, and possibly three, legitimate title contenders to deal with, and they had to play them twice each, just within their own division (the Giants had won the Super Bowl the prior season, Philadelphia was a serious contender that had a dangerous offense and the number one rated defense against both the run and the pass that season, and Dallas was a rising threat, and would go on to win the Super Bowl the following season). That is one thing that you can argue that Chicago in 1985 did not have, but then again, neither did New England in 2007, nor this guy's most dominant team selection, the 1989 San Francisco 49ers. In fact, part of the reason that the Patriots of the 2000's and 2010's and the 49ers of the 1980's and early 1990's enjoyed the level of success that they enjoyed had to be the relative ease of their schedule, with three usually weak teams within their division. In the NFC West back then, the Rams and Saints had a few playoff seasons during that stretch, but were more often out of the playoffs, than in. And the Falcons were a basket case. In the AFC East now, the Jets, Dolphins, and Bills have largely been basket cases during the time of the dominance of the Patriots, with a few seasons serving as exceptions (such as the Jets two consecutive AFC title game runs in 2009 and 2010).
The 1989 San Francisco 49ers scored 442 points, to 253 points scored against them. The 1985 Chicago Bears, by contrast, scored 456 points, and allowed 198. Both dominated in the playoffs, but if you want to argue about how strong their opponents were, the Bears likely had the tougher opponents, beating the next year's champion Giants, and then shutting out the NFC West champion Rams, en route to their Super Bowl, which they won in what was then the most lopsided Super Bowl ever, and which still stands as the second largest margin of victory that game has ever seen. It was not even as close as the 46-10 margin suggested. A more accurate feel of the game was when the Bears were beating the Pats, 44-3, after which all of the starters were pulled. Frankly, it could have been even worse. Yet, that was a suitable indicator of just how much better those Bears were than the best of their competition. And remember, this was in an era when the San Francisco was en route to claiming "Team of the Decade" honors, the Giants were coached by Bill Parcells and really coming into their own, Washington was coached by Joe Gibbs and had enjoyed considerable success, and the Raiders also were only a couple of years removed from a Super Bowl championship themselves. The 49ers in 1989 had no obvious rivals like that. The Broncos clearly were not ready to win a Super Bowl, the Giants were rebuilding and would only present a serious challenge the next season, and the Rams, who managed a surprising run in the playoffs, were not able to give the 49ers serious competition in the Championship Game.
Another thing that I noticed, is that while there are two Giants teams considered the 50 most dominant teams of all time, neither of those teams were even the most dominant Giants teams of their era. The Giants of the Bill Parcells era won two championships, as did the Giants of the Tom Coughlin era. Yet, the weakest of each of these airs of championships from the two eras gets top billing in both regards. The 1986 Giants scored 371 points, while allowing 236 points against. Yet, their most dominant stretch came after a 17-point comeback in San Francisco, when the G-Men mind of took off, dominating their opponents the rest of the way, both in the regular season and the playoffs. From their 14th game onward, New York outscored their opponents by a total margin of 211 points to 68. They won their NFC playoff games against San Francisco and Washington by a combined 66-3 margin. The 1990 Giants scored 335 points, while giving up an impressively stingy 211 total. Their defense was arguably tougher, but their offense was not nearly as explosive as the '86 team. They only managed to break 30 points twice that season, scoring 31 once in the regular season, and 31 again once in the playoffs. The '86 team managed to score 30 points or more four times, twice in the regular season (including a franchise record 55 points against Green Bay in the season finale, when the team was really starting to dominate), and twice in the playoffs, scoring a 49-3 humiliation of the 49ers, and beating Denver 39-20 in the Super Bowl. As for the Coughlin era, the Giants scored 373 points in 2007, and allowed 351, amassing a 10-6 record overall. It was not clear that they would qualify for the postseason until the second to last week But the 2011 team scored 394 points, while allowing 400 points. Yes, that's right, they allowed more points than they scored, at least in the postseason, en route to a 9-7 record. It was not clear that they would qualify for the postseason until they beat Dallas in a winner takes all regular season finale. Hardly seems like credentials for honorable mention on the list of all-time dominant teams now, does it? And I'm a Giants fan, but come on!
Almost anyone who was old enough to be around and remember the Giants back in the Parcells era would easily identify the 1986 Giants as far and away more dominant than the 1990 team. Those Giants went 14-2 during the regular season, which marked the best overall record the franchise ever had, and earned the top seed in the NFC playoffs that season. They won all of their final six games, including playoffs, by double digits. They beat their first two playoff opponents by a combined score of 66-3, and entered the Super Bowl with what had been one of the most dominant displays in playoff history, before whipping the Denver Broncos, 39-20, to win the championship. By contrast, the 1990 Giants got off to what seemed like a dominant 10-0 start, but then hit some major bumps on the road, losing three of four games, and losing any chance of home field advantage throughout. They finished 13-3, and indeed dominated the Chicago Bears, 31-3, in the divisional round. But they barely beat the 49ers in the NFC Championship Game, and then squeaked by Buffalo in the Super Bowl, edging them by a single point in what remains to this day the only Super Bowl decided by the closest margin of victory possible: a single point. And that was because of a missed field goal, which was wide by just a few feet.
Now, that is not to slight the 1990 team. In fact, I think that was my favorite team, and my favorite overall season, since I became a fan in 1981. No other Giants team, and perhaps no other team, period, was nearly as exciting to me as that team was. They had some intense games, including some close ones against Washington and Phoenix during that 10-0 start, and then lost a close one in that hugely anticipated Monday night showdown at San Fran. They lost that heartbreaker to Buffalo in the regular season, and then avenged both losses in the playoffs in incredibly exciting fashion. That team entertained better than the 1986 team did, because the '86 team was kind of a juggernaut. There was a point during the season that you just kind of felt that this was their destiny, and they kept blowing other teams away. But the 1990 team really had to play some teams that, admittedly, were most likely better. Not by much, but better. The 49ers may have been better, and I am quite sure that the Bills, at least, were better. That the Giants survived all of that and found a way to take the title was just magnificent, and made for a memorable season! And I am not saying that they were not dominant, in their own way. Parcells himself said that the '90 team should not be underestimated, just because a lot of their wins were close, because that team specifically seemed to know how to win most of the close games. And again, that 13-3 record, and the level of competition that they had to face, qualifies that team as the second best, or most dominant, Giants team in my book.
Those Giants won two Super Bowls in a span of five seasons, and they did it again during the Tom Coughlin era. But this guy puts the 2011 Giants as more dominant than the 2007 Giants, which I do not understand. In 2011, it is true, the Giants knocked off some really tough teams, including the 15-1 Packers at Lambeau, the 13-3 49ers at San Francisco, and the 13-3 New England Patriots in the Super Bowl rematch. The 2007 Giants, though, beat three straight division champions in the NFC round, and then beat the undefeated New England Patriots in the Super Bowl. It's funny, because this guy also mentions that the 1990 Giants have to get the nod over the Buffalo Bills because they beat them in the Super Bowl, yet the 2007 Giants are not even on this list, while the 2007 Pats are ranked as the sixth most dominant team in NFL history, according to Lazarus. Also, the 1988 Cincinnati Bengals rank as among the 50 most dominant teams, but the team that beat them (albeit barely), and was heavily favored against them going into the Super Bowl, the '88 San Francisco 49ers, do not qualify as one of the most dominant teams, either. That all seemed a bit strange to me. Likewise, the 2003 Carolina Panthers, who finished 11-5, rank higher than the team that beat them in the Super Bowl that year, the 14-2 New England Patriots. The Pats followed that up with yet another 14-2 championship season the next year, yet the team that they beat in that Super Bowl, the 2004 Philadelphia Eagles, also makes the list as one of the 50 most dominant teams in league history, while neither of those New England teams quite qualifies. Likewise, the 2005 Seattle Seahawks make the list as one of the most dominant teams in league history, even though the teams that they were underdogs against, and eventually lost to in the Super Bowl, the Pittsburgh Steelers, also do not qualify for this list. Does that make sense to you? Because it sure did not make any sense as far as I was concerned.
Now, please don't get me wrong: I do understand that some teams who did not win championships would rate higher than the team who beat them. One of the teams on his list was the 1998 Minnesota Vikings, and that I would definitely agree with. They had one bad game, or at least part of a game, all season. Yet, it came in the NFC title game, in a contest that they were winning decisively for much of it, but eventually fell short in, ultimately losing to Atlanta in overtime. But I do believe that they were the better team. And the 2007 Patriots were probably better than the Giants, although not by much, because the two teams met twice, and exchanged a pair of three-point victories, with the Pats winning the first one in the regular season, and the Giants winning the obviously more important one in the Super Bowl. Sticking with the Giants for a moment, I believe that the Bills were better than the Giants, even though Buffalo lost to them in the Super Bowl, even though this guy put the Giants and Bills right next to one another, with the G-Men getting a slight nod. You could even make a somewhat legitimate argument about other teams on the list, like maybe the '88 Bengals, who went 12-4 and almost won that Super Bowl, perhaps did have a more dominant season than the 10-6 49ers team that beat them, or that the 13-3 Philadelphia Eagles of 2004 might have been better than the 14-2 Patriots that season, but just kind of choked a little bit in the Super Bowl. But there was no way that the Panthers were more dominant than the Pats in 2003, and no way that Washington in 1991 was less dominant than each of the 36 other teams that were ahead of them on this list. And I'm sorry, but again, there is just no way that there are 12 teams that were more dominant than those 1985 Chicago Bears. That was such an egregious undermining of those Bears, who were probably the best team in North American sports that I have seen. It seems to me that he just did not particularly like the New England Patriots or the Chicago Bears, since he kept slighting them.
And frankly, although I liked the 1991 Detroit Lions, I would not place them anywhere near the top 50 most dominant teams in NFL history. After all, they not only did not qualify for the Super Bowl that season, but they left no doubt that they were far, far inferior to the team that knocked them out. They lost to Washington in the NFC title game, 41-10, which was at least a bit closer than their regular season loss to Washington, 45-0, in the season opener that year. They also lost to San Francisco, 35-3, that season. And even though they beat the Bills in Buffalo that year, they did it on the final week of the regular season, with the Bills resting most of their starters because they had clinched home field already, while the Lions just barely escaped with a win that meant everything to them, as it secured the division title. Their offense was the ninth highest scoring team in the league that season, while their defense was more or less middle of the pack. So, that being considered one of the 50 most dominant teams in NFL history on this list, when there are actual champions crowned every season, seemed a bit laughable to me. Again, I liked those Lions, and was hoping that they would beat Washington. But in those two games against Washington in particular, they lost by a combined score of 86-10. In other words, they got humiliated 45-0 in the first game, and on the second time around, with time and opportunity to make proper adjustments, they still got blasted, 41-10. Not exactly what I would qualify as a historical display of dominance, at least not by the team on the short end of those two games. If this guy, by his own admission, leaves the three Broncos teams of the 1980's off the list based on what he called embarrassing performances in the Super Bowl, then am I missing something to think that he should also have left the Lions off this list on account of not one, but two embarrassing performances by the Detroit Lions, who failed to even reach the Super Bowl that year? Yet, they make it onto the list of 50 most dominant teams in NFL history. And they got truly embarrassed and blown out - twice! - by a team that only ranks a bit higher than them in the all-time list of 50 most dominant teams ever? Hmmm...
Let us be clear about something: the inclusion of some teams, and the exclusion of others, means that this guy thinks that certain teams were more dominant than others, who were more accomplished. Again, by that logic, the 1988 Cincinnati Bengals were more dominant than the team that they were heavy underdogs against, and ultimately lost to, in the Super Bowl. The 2003 Carolina Panthers, at 11-5, were more dominant than the 14-2 New England Patriots team that beat them in the Super Bowl. And going across the years, both the 12-4 1988 Cincinnati Bengals and the 12-4 1991 Detroit Lions, who again lost three games to NFC teams wearing red and gold uniforms by a combined score of 121-13, were more dominant than the 1986 Super Bowl champion New York Giants, and more dominant than the 12-4 1993 Super Bowl champion Dallas Cowboys, who earned the first back-to-back titles in franchise history. Do you believe that the 1988 Bengals would have dominated the '86 Giants? Do you really think that the 1991 Lions would have beaten the '93 Cowboys with Emmitt Smith?
Yeah, neither do I. In fact, I do not even think that the 1991 Detroit Lions would have beaten the 1991 Buffalo Bills, if those two teams had played in a meaningful game for both teams. Hell, the Lions barely scraped by Buffalo when the Bills were resting most of their starters, in a game that meant everything to Detroit, and nothing to the Super Bowl bound Bills. Yet, despite that, and there frankly embarrassing NFC Championship Game showing and the failure to even reach the Super Bowl, the Lions are rated as one of the 50 most dominant teams in NFL history, and the Bills are not ranked.
Some other teams within a decade before or after the 191 Detroit Lions that apparently were not as dominant as those Lions, according to this guy? The 1981 San Francisco 49ers in their first title tun. Washington in 1983, a 14-2 team that were on the verge of a second straight title, before losing a shocking upset in the Super Bowl. The 14-2 New York Giants in 1986, which dominated the NFC playoffs by a combined 66-3, before beating Denver in a blowout to win their first Super Bowl. Washington in 1987 and San Francisco in 1988. Dallas in 1993, and Dallas again in 1995. Denver in 1997.
Make sense?
I did not think so, either.
Seriously, does anyone believe that those Lions were better than, or would have beaten, any of those other teams just mentioned? It's hard to imagine, frankly.
There are other glaring omissions, as well, and that does not even include the teams that could not be added, because they came after this article was published. The 1995 Dallas Cowboys, like the 1993 team, were not part of this list, while other teams that did not win the Super Bowl are on it. Were the 1998 Falcons better than those Cowboys? Most people would suggest otherwise, but according to this guy, they likely would have. The 2004 Philadelphia Eagles were apparently better than any of the Patriots teams that won those three Super Bowls in the early 2000's, which again, makes almost no sense, particularly since those Patriots beat the Eagles in both the 2003-04 season, and the 2004-05 season (in the Super Bowl itself). The Patriots managed to win an NFL record 21 straight games (a record that still stands, by the way) from the 2003-04 season, to the beginning of the 2004-05 season, and they beat the Eagles twice during those two combined seasons. They were one of a very few teams that finished back-to-back seasons with a record of 14-2 or better, and they were the only one of those teams that followed both of those seasons by winning the Super Bowl. Yet, neither of these two Patriots seasons apparently qualifies as among the 50 most dominant seasons of all time, although the seasons for both the 2003 Panthers and the 2004 Eagles - the two teams that the Patriots defeated in the Super Bowls at the end of those two seasons - are on the list, and thus rank as more dominant.
Right.
These are not minor points. These are glaring omissions on this guy's part. Or, perhaps, these are glaringly obvious bad additions onto a list that they clearly do not belong to. Again, I liked the 1991 Detroit Lions, and enjoyed the success that they had. I liked the 1988 Cincinnati Bengals even more. But were either of those teams among the 50 best teams that I have ever seen, let alone among the 50 most dominant teams of all time?
Not a chance, truth be told. I could maybe make an argument in favor of the Bengals. After all, they actually were the top seed in the AFC, advanced to the Super Bowl, and very nearly won it, to boot. But there is no way that the Lions even come close to this list. They got blown out by Washington in the regular season, and heading into the NFC title game, you just knew that they were going to get blown out again. And that is exactly what they did. It was one of the worst, least competitive, and thus most boring, NFC Championship Games in history. That's not the sign of a dominant team, let alone a historically dominant one.
That was the most obvious example of why this list was not very well thought out. I mean, seriously, on a list of the most dominant teams in NFL (or any sports) history, you have to start with the teams that actually won the championships, do you not? You might consider some of the teams that did not if what they did was truly exceptional, which was indeed the case with, say, the 2007 New England Patriots, or the 1998 Minnesota Vikings. But to place a whole bunch of teams that failed to win the Super Bowl, and even several that did not even qualify for the Super Bowl? It is just such a glaring oversight that serves to discredit the entire list, frankly.
But don't take my word for it. Take a look at this list for yourself, and see what you think:
They were the most dominant team that I ever saw, regular season and playoffs. Not only did they start off as one of the preseason favorites, but they got off to an incredible, undefeated start that season, yet they only seemed to get better as the season wore on. They allowed the fewest points of any team in many years, allowing an average of around 12 points per game, while scoring the second most of any team that season. That led to an incredibly dominant average margin of victory which ranks among the best in league history. There are other picks that you have here which I disagree with, but this one was far and away the most glaring. I am not a Bears fan, but damn, give them some respect! Were you old enough to remember them? I'm guessing not, because if you were, you likely would have put them at the very top of the list. They started off 12-0, handed a relatively elite Cowboys team their worst ever loss, 44-0, AT DALLAS! That still stands as the worst loss that the Cowboys have ever suffered in franchise history, and they won the NFC East that season. Yet, the Bears regularly dispatched with top tier opponents that season, more often than not in blowout fashion. They went to San Francisco and dominated the 49ers, who had shut them out in the previous NFC title game en route to their second Super Bowl championship in four seasons. The Bears dominated the New England Patriots in the regular season, and then humiliated them in the Super Bowl. They also dominated another playoff team, the New York Jets, on the road. They crushed Washington, a team that had been to two Super Bowls in recent seasons. During one three game stretch, they allowed a total of 3 points, and their defense outscored these combined opposing defenses during that stretch. In the playoffs, In the playoffs, they shut out my Giants, 21-0, then followed that up with another shutout, 24-0 over the Rams, becoming the first NFL team to record consecutive playoff shutout wins. In the three playoff contests, they outscored their opponents by a combined score of 91-10, and those 10 points total are easily a record for the least amount of points allowed by any team in the course of three playoff games since at least the advent of the 16-game seasons. They made a video basically announcing how great they were well before the playoffs even started, and nobody was able to even come close to preventing them from doing the "Super Bowl Shuffle" at season's end. In the Super Bowl, they destroyed New England, 46-10, and frankly, the Pats were lucky that it was not worse.
The Bears were that scary kind of team that you dreaded having to face. I was a young kid in late 1985 into early 1986, but I remember that they were the kind of team that you just knew were going to win it all. They left no doubt with just how dominant they were, and it cannot be stressed enough just how intimidating their level of dominance as. To me, they seemed kind of like the NFL's answer to Mike Tyson's early career dominance. They were physically dominating, and just had a swagger about them that nobody was able to knock off, save for one regular season game against Miami, when the Bears uncharacterstically had a bad game and suffered their one and only loss of the entire season. Everyone just knew that they were going to win it all from almost mid-season. They easily had the best defense that season, and one of the most dominant defenses of all time. But they also enjoyed one of the best offenses that season, as well, scoring the second most amount of points, right behind the San Diego Chargers of the Dan Fouts era. I never saw a better team, before or since. Sorry, but there are not 12 teams that enjoyed more dominant seasons than they were. In fact, I doubt that there was even one. This extremely low and unfair ranking discredits his entire article, frankly, and I am saying that while not even a Bears fan!
Frankly, I hated the Bears back then. But that was how I came to appreciate just how damn good they were for that one season. It was only years later, once they were no longer anywhere near what they had been, that I began to look back and truly appreciate how special that team was. Prior to that point, which came right around the time that the 1990 season was about to begin, I almost felt it would be bad luck to think about the Bears too much, because it always seemed like a distinct possibility that they would find that form again, and dominate. They never did, but it just cannot be understated how incredible they were for that one season. Frankly, I think that this team deserves to be recognized as the most dominant single season teams in NFL history, and one of the most dominant in sports history in general. Yet, they often seem not to get the level of respect that they deserve. I mean, this guy who wrote this piece, Adam Lazarus, puts numerous teams, including the 2007 New England Patriots, as more dominant than the '85 Bears.
But the thing is that the Bears started off hot, and with that one loss to Miami serving as the sole exception, Chicago basically remained dominant throughout the season. If anything, they were getting even better, showing even more dominance, later in the season, and especially in the playoffs. Two playoff shutouts in a row? Then, crushing the Pats in the Super Bowl in what was then record fashion, and which remains the second most lopsided Super Bowl outcome to this day? So, how can he possibly place them as number 13? To think that 12 teams were even close to reaching the level of dominance that those Bears enjoyed is, frankly, a laughable notion to me. This guy must have a very short memory. I mean, really short. Yes, the Patriots went 16-0 in 2007, and for a while, looked like the most dominant team in NFL history. This was especially true for when they were 10-0, and had dominated certain teams by scores of 52-7 (Washington) and 56-10 (at Buffalo). However, in the final six games of the regular season, and then again throughout the playoffs, the Pats looked much more pedestrian. That is not to say ordinary, and it was hard to forget that incredibly dominant start. But they won games by more normal scores. They beat Miami, the worst team in the league that season, 28-7. They Jets were also bad, and New England got past them, 20-10. They barely got past Philadelphia, a losing team. They got extremely lucky to avoid a huge upset at Baltimore, another losing team. They lucked out again in avoiding a loss at the Giants in the regular season finale. They beat, but did not humiliate or overwhelm, Jacksonville in the divisional round, then really struggled against San Diego in the AFC title game, before earning a hard fought 21-12 win. But of course, the biggest disqualifier in most people's minds would be the fact that they lost the Super Bowl, because then, they were not even champions in that supposedly dominant season. In many ways, that 2007 season was like a tale of two seasons for the Patriots. And if we take the entirety of the season into consideration, from the unbelievable start, with records being smashed left and right early on, to the end, when they were clearly slowing down and not imposing their will on opponents, culminating in a tough win in the AFC title game, and then the shocking upset loss in the Super Bowl, it is hard to make the case that the Patriots that season really were more dominant than the '85 Bears, a team that also started off red hot and smashing records early on, and who finished the same way, sealing the deal with three straight historically dominant wins in the playoffs to secure the title that everyone knew they were going to get months before they officially got it.
My best guess is that he is detracting from their accomplishments due to the strength of their opponents, and furthermore, I am guessing that he is basically saying that they did not have strong opponents. But they played the Giants in the playoffs, an up and coming team that would themselves win the Super Bowl the following season. During the regular season, they convincingly beat the San Francisco 49ers, the defending champions and clearly one of the great teams of the era. They also beat Washington (who had been to two consecutive Super Bowls just a couple of years before). And they beat numerous playoff teams, during the regular season, including New England, Dallas (again, 44-0 in Dallas!), as well as the New York Jets. They not only beat those teams, but they won convincingly in each, with three of those games being road games (San Francisco, Dallas, and at the New York Jets).
Besides, if he were to take away credit from that truly great Bears team for lack of strength of schedule, he would have to do so with some of those other teams that he ranked higher, which he apparently did not. After all, in 1991, Washington had two, and possibly three, legitimate title contenders to deal with, and they had to play them twice each, just within their own division (the Giants had won the Super Bowl the prior season, Philadelphia was a serious contender that had a dangerous offense and the number one rated defense against both the run and the pass that season, and Dallas was a rising threat, and would go on to win the Super Bowl the following season). That is one thing that you can argue that Chicago in 1985 did not have, but then again, neither did New England in 2007, nor this guy's most dominant team selection, the 1989 San Francisco 49ers. In fact, part of the reason that the Patriots of the 2000's and 2010's and the 49ers of the 1980's and early 1990's enjoyed the level of success that they enjoyed had to be the relative ease of their schedule, with three usually weak teams within their division. In the NFC West back then, the Rams and Saints had a few playoff seasons during that stretch, but were more often out of the playoffs, than in. And the Falcons were a basket case. In the AFC East now, the Jets, Dolphins, and Bills have largely been basket cases during the time of the dominance of the Patriots, with a few seasons serving as exceptions (such as the Jets two consecutive AFC title game runs in 2009 and 2010).
The 1989 San Francisco 49ers scored 442 points, to 253 points scored against them. The 1985 Chicago Bears, by contrast, scored 456 points, and allowed 198. Both dominated in the playoffs, but if you want to argue about how strong their opponents were, the Bears likely had the tougher opponents, beating the next year's champion Giants, and then shutting out the NFC West champion Rams, en route to their Super Bowl, which they won in what was then the most lopsided Super Bowl ever, and which still stands as the second largest margin of victory that game has ever seen. It was not even as close as the 46-10 margin suggested. A more accurate feel of the game was when the Bears were beating the Pats, 44-3, after which all of the starters were pulled. Frankly, it could have been even worse. Yet, that was a suitable indicator of just how much better those Bears were than the best of their competition. And remember, this was in an era when the San Francisco was en route to claiming "Team of the Decade" honors, the Giants were coached by Bill Parcells and really coming into their own, Washington was coached by Joe Gibbs and had enjoyed considerable success, and the Raiders also were only a couple of years removed from a Super Bowl championship themselves. The 49ers in 1989 had no obvious rivals like that. The Broncos clearly were not ready to win a Super Bowl, the Giants were rebuilding and would only present a serious challenge the next season, and the Rams, who managed a surprising run in the playoffs, were not able to give the 49ers serious competition in the Championship Game.
Another thing that I noticed, is that while there are two Giants teams considered the 50 most dominant teams of all time, neither of those teams were even the most dominant Giants teams of their era. The Giants of the Bill Parcells era won two championships, as did the Giants of the Tom Coughlin era. Yet, the weakest of each of these airs of championships from the two eras gets top billing in both regards. The 1986 Giants scored 371 points, while allowing 236 points against. Yet, their most dominant stretch came after a 17-point comeback in San Francisco, when the G-Men mind of took off, dominating their opponents the rest of the way, both in the regular season and the playoffs. From their 14th game onward, New York outscored their opponents by a total margin of 211 points to 68. They won their NFC playoff games against San Francisco and Washington by a combined 66-3 margin. The 1990 Giants scored 335 points, while giving up an impressively stingy 211 total. Their defense was arguably tougher, but their offense was not nearly as explosive as the '86 team. They only managed to break 30 points twice that season, scoring 31 once in the regular season, and 31 again once in the playoffs. The '86 team managed to score 30 points or more four times, twice in the regular season (including a franchise record 55 points against Green Bay in the season finale, when the team was really starting to dominate), and twice in the playoffs, scoring a 49-3 humiliation of the 49ers, and beating Denver 39-20 in the Super Bowl. As for the Coughlin era, the Giants scored 373 points in 2007, and allowed 351, amassing a 10-6 record overall. It was not clear that they would qualify for the postseason until the second to last week But the 2011 team scored 394 points, while allowing 400 points. Yes, that's right, they allowed more points than they scored, at least in the postseason, en route to a 9-7 record. It was not clear that they would qualify for the postseason until they beat Dallas in a winner takes all regular season finale. Hardly seems like credentials for honorable mention on the list of all-time dominant teams now, does it? And I'm a Giants fan, but come on!
Almost anyone who was old enough to be around and remember the Giants back in the Parcells era would easily identify the 1986 Giants as far and away more dominant than the 1990 team. Those Giants went 14-2 during the regular season, which marked the best overall record the franchise ever had, and earned the top seed in the NFC playoffs that season. They won all of their final six games, including playoffs, by double digits. They beat their first two playoff opponents by a combined score of 66-3, and entered the Super Bowl with what had been one of the most dominant displays in playoff history, before whipping the Denver Broncos, 39-20, to win the championship. By contrast, the 1990 Giants got off to what seemed like a dominant 10-0 start, but then hit some major bumps on the road, losing three of four games, and losing any chance of home field advantage throughout. They finished 13-3, and indeed dominated the Chicago Bears, 31-3, in the divisional round. But they barely beat the 49ers in the NFC Championship Game, and then squeaked by Buffalo in the Super Bowl, edging them by a single point in what remains to this day the only Super Bowl decided by the closest margin of victory possible: a single point. And that was because of a missed field goal, which was wide by just a few feet.
Now, that is not to slight the 1990 team. In fact, I think that was my favorite team, and my favorite overall season, since I became a fan in 1981. No other Giants team, and perhaps no other team, period, was nearly as exciting to me as that team was. They had some intense games, including some close ones against Washington and Phoenix during that 10-0 start, and then lost a close one in that hugely anticipated Monday night showdown at San Fran. They lost that heartbreaker to Buffalo in the regular season, and then avenged both losses in the playoffs in incredibly exciting fashion. That team entertained better than the 1986 team did, because the '86 team was kind of a juggernaut. There was a point during the season that you just kind of felt that this was their destiny, and they kept blowing other teams away. But the 1990 team really had to play some teams that, admittedly, were most likely better. Not by much, but better. The 49ers may have been better, and I am quite sure that the Bills, at least, were better. That the Giants survived all of that and found a way to take the title was just magnificent, and made for a memorable season! And I am not saying that they were not dominant, in their own way. Parcells himself said that the '90 team should not be underestimated, just because a lot of their wins were close, because that team specifically seemed to know how to win most of the close games. And again, that 13-3 record, and the level of competition that they had to face, qualifies that team as the second best, or most dominant, Giants team in my book.
Those Giants won two Super Bowls in a span of five seasons, and they did it again during the Tom Coughlin era. But this guy puts the 2011 Giants as more dominant than the 2007 Giants, which I do not understand. In 2011, it is true, the Giants knocked off some really tough teams, including the 15-1 Packers at Lambeau, the 13-3 49ers at San Francisco, and the 13-3 New England Patriots in the Super Bowl rematch. The 2007 Giants, though, beat three straight division champions in the NFC round, and then beat the undefeated New England Patriots in the Super Bowl. It's funny, because this guy also mentions that the 1990 Giants have to get the nod over the Buffalo Bills because they beat them in the Super Bowl, yet the 2007 Giants are not even on this list, while the 2007 Pats are ranked as the sixth most dominant team in NFL history, according to Lazarus. Also, the 1988 Cincinnati Bengals rank as among the 50 most dominant teams, but the team that beat them (albeit barely), and was heavily favored against them going into the Super Bowl, the '88 San Francisco 49ers, do not qualify as one of the most dominant teams, either. That all seemed a bit strange to me. Likewise, the 2003 Carolina Panthers, who finished 11-5, rank higher than the team that beat them in the Super Bowl that year, the 14-2 New England Patriots. The Pats followed that up with yet another 14-2 championship season the next year, yet the team that they beat in that Super Bowl, the 2004 Philadelphia Eagles, also makes the list as one of the 50 most dominant teams in league history, while neither of those New England teams quite qualifies. Likewise, the 2005 Seattle Seahawks make the list as one of the most dominant teams in league history, even though the teams that they were underdogs against, and eventually lost to in the Super Bowl, the Pittsburgh Steelers, also do not qualify for this list. Does that make sense to you? Because it sure did not make any sense as far as I was concerned.
Now, please don't get me wrong: I do understand that some teams who did not win championships would rate higher than the team who beat them. One of the teams on his list was the 1998 Minnesota Vikings, and that I would definitely agree with. They had one bad game, or at least part of a game, all season. Yet, it came in the NFC title game, in a contest that they were winning decisively for much of it, but eventually fell short in, ultimately losing to Atlanta in overtime. But I do believe that they were the better team. And the 2007 Patriots were probably better than the Giants, although not by much, because the two teams met twice, and exchanged a pair of three-point victories, with the Pats winning the first one in the regular season, and the Giants winning the obviously more important one in the Super Bowl. Sticking with the Giants for a moment, I believe that the Bills were better than the Giants, even though Buffalo lost to them in the Super Bowl, even though this guy put the Giants and Bills right next to one another, with the G-Men getting a slight nod. You could even make a somewhat legitimate argument about other teams on the list, like maybe the '88 Bengals, who went 12-4 and almost won that Super Bowl, perhaps did have a more dominant season than the 10-6 49ers team that beat them, or that the 13-3 Philadelphia Eagles of 2004 might have been better than the 14-2 Patriots that season, but just kind of choked a little bit in the Super Bowl. But there was no way that the Panthers were more dominant than the Pats in 2003, and no way that Washington in 1991 was less dominant than each of the 36 other teams that were ahead of them on this list. And I'm sorry, but again, there is just no way that there are 12 teams that were more dominant than those 1985 Chicago Bears. That was such an egregious undermining of those Bears, who were probably the best team in North American sports that I have seen. It seems to me that he just did not particularly like the New England Patriots or the Chicago Bears, since he kept slighting them.
And frankly, although I liked the 1991 Detroit Lions, I would not place them anywhere near the top 50 most dominant teams in NFL history. After all, they not only did not qualify for the Super Bowl that season, but they left no doubt that they were far, far inferior to the team that knocked them out. They lost to Washington in the NFC title game, 41-10, which was at least a bit closer than their regular season loss to Washington, 45-0, in the season opener that year. They also lost to San Francisco, 35-3, that season. And even though they beat the Bills in Buffalo that year, they did it on the final week of the regular season, with the Bills resting most of their starters because they had clinched home field already, while the Lions just barely escaped with a win that meant everything to them, as it secured the division title. Their offense was the ninth highest scoring team in the league that season, while their defense was more or less middle of the pack. So, that being considered one of the 50 most dominant teams in NFL history on this list, when there are actual champions crowned every season, seemed a bit laughable to me. Again, I liked those Lions, and was hoping that they would beat Washington. But in those two games against Washington in particular, they lost by a combined score of 86-10. In other words, they got humiliated 45-0 in the first game, and on the second time around, with time and opportunity to make proper adjustments, they still got blasted, 41-10. Not exactly what I would qualify as a historical display of dominance, at least not by the team on the short end of those two games. If this guy, by his own admission, leaves the three Broncos teams of the 1980's off the list based on what he called embarrassing performances in the Super Bowl, then am I missing something to think that he should also have left the Lions off this list on account of not one, but two embarrassing performances by the Detroit Lions, who failed to even reach the Super Bowl that year? Yet, they make it onto the list of 50 most dominant teams in NFL history. And they got truly embarrassed and blown out - twice! - by a team that only ranks a bit higher than them in the all-time list of 50 most dominant teams ever? Hmmm...
Let us be clear about something: the inclusion of some teams, and the exclusion of others, means that this guy thinks that certain teams were more dominant than others, who were more accomplished. Again, by that logic, the 1988 Cincinnati Bengals were more dominant than the team that they were heavy underdogs against, and ultimately lost to, in the Super Bowl. The 2003 Carolina Panthers, at 11-5, were more dominant than the 14-2 New England Patriots team that beat them in the Super Bowl. And going across the years, both the 12-4 1988 Cincinnati Bengals and the 12-4 1991 Detroit Lions, who again lost three games to NFC teams wearing red and gold uniforms by a combined score of 121-13, were more dominant than the 1986 Super Bowl champion New York Giants, and more dominant than the 12-4 1993 Super Bowl champion Dallas Cowboys, who earned the first back-to-back titles in franchise history. Do you believe that the 1988 Bengals would have dominated the '86 Giants? Do you really think that the 1991 Lions would have beaten the '93 Cowboys with Emmitt Smith?
Yeah, neither do I. In fact, I do not even think that the 1991 Detroit Lions would have beaten the 1991 Buffalo Bills, if those two teams had played in a meaningful game for both teams. Hell, the Lions barely scraped by Buffalo when the Bills were resting most of their starters, in a game that meant everything to Detroit, and nothing to the Super Bowl bound Bills. Yet, despite that, and there frankly embarrassing NFC Championship Game showing and the failure to even reach the Super Bowl, the Lions are rated as one of the 50 most dominant teams in NFL history, and the Bills are not ranked.
Some other teams within a decade before or after the 191 Detroit Lions that apparently were not as dominant as those Lions, according to this guy? The 1981 San Francisco 49ers in their first title tun. Washington in 1983, a 14-2 team that were on the verge of a second straight title, before losing a shocking upset in the Super Bowl. The 14-2 New York Giants in 1986, which dominated the NFC playoffs by a combined 66-3, before beating Denver in a blowout to win their first Super Bowl. Washington in 1987 and San Francisco in 1988. Dallas in 1993, and Dallas again in 1995. Denver in 1997.
Make sense?
I did not think so, either.
Seriously, does anyone believe that those Lions were better than, or would have beaten, any of those other teams just mentioned? It's hard to imagine, frankly.
There are other glaring omissions, as well, and that does not even include the teams that could not be added, because they came after this article was published. The 1995 Dallas Cowboys, like the 1993 team, were not part of this list, while other teams that did not win the Super Bowl are on it. Were the 1998 Falcons better than those Cowboys? Most people would suggest otherwise, but according to this guy, they likely would have. The 2004 Philadelphia Eagles were apparently better than any of the Patriots teams that won those three Super Bowls in the early 2000's, which again, makes almost no sense, particularly since those Patriots beat the Eagles in both the 2003-04 season, and the 2004-05 season (in the Super Bowl itself). The Patriots managed to win an NFL record 21 straight games (a record that still stands, by the way) from the 2003-04 season, to the beginning of the 2004-05 season, and they beat the Eagles twice during those two combined seasons. They were one of a very few teams that finished back-to-back seasons with a record of 14-2 or better, and they were the only one of those teams that followed both of those seasons by winning the Super Bowl. Yet, neither of these two Patriots seasons apparently qualifies as among the 50 most dominant seasons of all time, although the seasons for both the 2003 Panthers and the 2004 Eagles - the two teams that the Patriots defeated in the Super Bowls at the end of those two seasons - are on the list, and thus rank as more dominant.
Right.
These are not minor points. These are glaring omissions on this guy's part. Or, perhaps, these are glaringly obvious bad additions onto a list that they clearly do not belong to. Again, I liked the 1991 Detroit Lions, and enjoyed the success that they had. I liked the 1988 Cincinnati Bengals even more. But were either of those teams among the 50 best teams that I have ever seen, let alone among the 50 most dominant teams of all time?
Not a chance, truth be told. I could maybe make an argument in favor of the Bengals. After all, they actually were the top seed in the AFC, advanced to the Super Bowl, and very nearly won it, to boot. But there is no way that the Lions even come close to this list. They got blown out by Washington in the regular season, and heading into the NFC title game, you just knew that they were going to get blown out again. And that is exactly what they did. It was one of the worst, least competitive, and thus most boring, NFC Championship Games in history. That's not the sign of a dominant team, let alone a historically dominant one.
That was the most obvious example of why this list was not very well thought out. I mean, seriously, on a list of the most dominant teams in NFL (or any sports) history, you have to start with the teams that actually won the championships, do you not? You might consider some of the teams that did not if what they did was truly exceptional, which was indeed the case with, say, the 2007 New England Patriots, or the 1998 Minnesota Vikings. But to place a whole bunch of teams that failed to win the Super Bowl, and even several that did not even qualify for the Super Bowl? It is just such a glaring oversight that serves to discredit the entire list, frankly.
But don't take my word for it. Take a look at this list for yourself, and see what you think:
The 50 Best Teams in NFL History ADAM LAZARUS MAY 31, 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment