SITE NEWS: We are moving all of our site and company news into a single blog for Sports-Reference.com. We'll tag all PFR content, so you can quickly and easily find the content you want.

Also, our existing PFR blog rss feed will be redirected to the new site's feed.

Pro-Football-Reference.com ยป Sports Reference

For more from Chase and Jason, check out their work at Football Perspective and The Big Lead.

Greatest Super Bowl Teams II

Posted by Doug on February 2, 2007

Yesterday I posted an objective list of the best and worst Super Bowl teams of all time. Commenter JKL opined that the list might be improved by including some information about the surrounding years.

The 2002 Buccaneers, for instance, ranked #16 on yesterday's list. But nobody really thinks of them as a historically great team, largely because in the surrounding years the Bucs were just good, not great, which causes people to downgrade the Super Bowl win as a bit of a fluke. The 2000 Ravens fall into the same category.

If the Colts win this weekend, they'll be an example of the reverse phenomenon: a team that really did not have a terribly impressive year, but that probably will be looked kindly upon in hindsight because of their consistently excellent play for the last several years.

So here is what I did.

1. For each Super Bowl team, I looked at all three three-consecutive-year stretches that included the Super Bowl year. For example, for the 2002 Bucs, I looked at 2000--2002, 2001--2003, 2002--2004.

2. For each of those three-year periods, I weighted the team's rating (according to the simple rating system) in the Super Bowl year as 50% of their score and their rating in each of the other two years as 25% of their score.

3. I then take the three-year stretch with the highest score.

For the Bucs, their best (weighted) stretch was 2000--2002 and their score breaks down like this:


RNK TM YR Score 3-yr run Yr1 Yr2 Yr3
=======================================================
39. *tam 2002 7.9 2000-2002 5.1 2.5 12.0*

So their ratings were 5.1, 2.5, and 12.0 in 2000 through 2002 respectively. That adds up to a weighted score of 7.9, which ranks them 39th among the 74 post-merger Super Bowl participants. The Super Bowl year is marked with a star.

Note that teams from 1970, 1971, 2005, and 2006 could potentially be at a bit of a disadvantage because they didn't have (or haven't yet had) the chance to complete all three stretches during the years under consideration.

Here is the list:


RNK TM YR Score 3-yr run Yr1 Yr2 Yr3
=======================================================
1. *pit 1975 13.0 1974-1976 8.6 14.2* 15.2
2. *sfo 1989 12.3 1987-1989 10.8 7.9 15.2*
3. *sfo 1994 12.2 1992-1994 11.1 10.6 13.5*
4. *dal 1992 12.1 1992-1994 13.3* 11.2 10.8
5. *mia 1973 12.1 1971-1973 7.6 11.0 14.8*
6. *gnb 1996 11.9 1995-1997 6.8 16.3* 8.2
7. *chi 1985 11.7 1985-1987 18.1* 6.4 4.2
8. *pit 1974 11.6 1974-1976 8.6* 14.2 15.2
9. *dal 1993 11.6 1992-1994 13.3 11.2* 10.8
10. *was 1991 11.4 1990-1992 5.5 17.3* 5.6
11. was 1983 11.2 1982-1984 11.2 13.7* 6.0
12. *mia 1972 11.1 1971-1973 7.6 11.0* 14.8
13. *sfo 1984 11.1 1983-1985 7.9 14.4* 7.5
14. *dal 1995 10.9 1993-1995 11.2 10.8 10.8*
15. *nwe 2004 10.6 2004-2006 13.8* 4.1 10.7
16. *den 1998 10.6 1996-1998 6.7 11.7 11.9*
17. *pit 1978 10.6 1976-1978 15.2 5.4 10.8*
18. *den 1997 10.5 1996-1998 6.7 11.7* 11.9
19. *was 1982 10.5 1982-1984 11.2* 13.7 6.0
20. *pit 1979 10.4 1977-1979 5.4 10.8 12.8*
21. *sfo 1988 10.4 1987-1989 10.8 7.9* 15.2
22. stl 2001 10.3 1999-2001 12.2 2.1 13.6*
23. mia 1971 10.2 1971-1973 7.6* 11.0 14.8
24. *stl 1999 10.0 1999-2001 12.2* 2.1 13.6
25. *dal 1971 9.9 1971-1973 11.5* 4.8 11.7
26. gnb 1997 9.9 1995-1997 6.8 16.3 8.2*
27. *oak 1976 9.7 1975-1977 6.7 11.1* 9.7
28. mia 1984 9.6 1982-1984 10.0 6.8 10.8*
29. mia 1982 9.4 1982-1984 10.0* 6.8 10.8
30. dal 1978 9.1 1976-1978 4.0 10.6 11.0*
31. ind 2006 9.1 2004-2006 11.3 10.3 7.3*
32. *dal 1977 9.0 1976-1978 4.0 10.6* 11.0
33. oak 2002 8.6 2000-2002 9.9 4.1 10.1*
34. *nwe 2003 8.3 2003-2005 7.6* 13.8 4.1
35. min 1973 8.2 1973-1975 9.1* 6.4 8.2
36. min 1976 8.2 1974-1976 6.4 8.2 9.1*
37. den 1977 8.0 1976-1978 7.2 10.6* 3.8
38. buf 1990 8.0 1988-1990 5.4 4.2 11.1*
39. *tam 2002 7.9 2000-2002 5.1 2.5 12.0*
40. *pit 2005 7.8 2004-2006 8.6 10.0* 2.8
41. *rai 1983 7.8 1982-1984 4.6 10.4* 5.9
42. *nyg 1986 7.8 1984-1986 1.2 4.2 12.9*
43. dal 1970 7.8 1970-1972 7.4* 11.5 4.8
44. was 1972 7.8 1972-1974 7.9* 6.5 8.8
45. dal 1975 7.6 1973-1975 11.7 5.3 6.6*
46. min 1974 7.5 1973-1975 9.1 6.4* 8.2
47. phi 1980 7.4 1979-1981 2.3 9.5* 8.0
48. *bal 2000 7.0 1999-2001 1.7 11.7* 2.8
49. *nyg 1990 6.5 1988-1990 2.2 5.6 9.2*
50. buf 1991 6.4 1990-1992 11.1 5.0* 4.6
51. buf 1992 6.3 1990-1992 11.1 5.0 4.6*
52. phi 2004 6.2 2002-2004 7.7 4.1 6.5*
53. *nwe 2001 5.6 2001-2003 5.3* 4.0 7.6
54. nwe 1996 5.1 1996-1998 6.4* 5.5 2.2
55. nwe 1985 5.0 1985-1987 6.1* 5.0 3.0
56. pit 1995 4.9 1994-1996 5.4 4.8* 4.7
57. den 1986 4.9 1984-1986 6.3 3.1 5.0*
58. buf 1993 4.8 1991-1993 5.0 4.6 4.9*
59. *sfo 1981 4.8 1981-1983 7.3* -3.2 7.9
60. cin 1988 4.8 1988-1990 6.4* 6.5 -0.1
61. *oak 1980 4.7 1978-1980 2.0 3.6 6.6*
62. chi 2006 4.6 2005-2007 1.2 8.6* 0.0
63. sea 2005 4.5 2003-2005 3.2 -3.7 9.2*
64. *was 1987 4.3 1985-1987 -2.1 6.6 6.3*
65. den 1987 4.2 1985-1987 3.1 5.0 4.4*
66. ten 1999 4.1 1998-2000 -0.2 3.9* 8.7
67. den 1989 3.7 1989-1991 6.6* -1.6 3.1
68. *bal 1970 3.5 1969-1971 0.0 2.5* 9.0
69. cin 1981 3.3 1981-1983 6.4* 0.3 0.2
70. ram 1979 2.6 1977-1979 7.1 3.4 -0.1*
71. sdg 1994 2.5 1992-1994 1.7 1.9 3.2*
72. car 2003 2.1 2003-2005 1.9* -1.0 5.6
73. atl 1998 1.8 1997-1999 -4.3 9.0* -6.6
74. nyg 2000 1.8 2000-2002 4.4* -1.7 0.1

This entry was posted on Friday, February 2nd, 2007 at 5:45 am and is filed under General, History. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.