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.
ShareThisThe 2007 New York Giants: Worst Super Bowl Champion ever?
I was rooting strongly for the Giants in this past Super Bowl and was very impressed with New York's victory. I also know that being considered the worst super bowl champion ever is like being the least impressive gold medalist: all deserve credit and praise for achieving such an incredible feat. Winning on the field is what counts, and who really cares what I have to say, anyway?
However, I was curious to see where New York ranked relative to other champions. Here's a list of all 42 Super Bowl Champions, sorted by record:
mia1972 14-0-0 1.000 chi1985 15-1-0 0.938 sfo1984 15-1-0 0.938 rai1976 13-1-0 0.929 was1982 8-1-0 0.889 was1991 14-2-0 0.875 den1998 14-2-0 0.875 sfo1989 14-2-0 0.875 nwe2004 14-2-0 0.875 pit1978 14-2-0 0.875 nyg1986 14-2-0 0.875 nwe2003 14-2-0 0.875 pit1975 12-2-0 0.857 mia1973 12-2-0 0.857 gnb1966 12-2-0 0.857 dal1977 12-2-0 0.857 clt1970 11-2-1 0.821 ram1999 13-3-0 0.813 gnb1996 13-3-0 0.813 sfo1994 13-3-0 0.813 dal1992 13-3-0 0.813 nyg1990 13-3-0 0.813 sfo1981 13-3-0 0.813 dal1971 11-3-0 0.786 kan1969 11-3-0 0.786 nyj1968 11-3-0 0.786 den1997 12-4-0 0.750 rav2000 12-4-0 0.750 pit1979 12-4-0 0.750 tam2002 12-4-0 0.750 dal1993 12-4-0 0.750 dal1995 12-4-0 0.750 pit1974 10-3-1 0.750 rai1983 12-4-0 0.750 clt2006 12-4-0 0.750 was1987 11-4-0 0.733 pit2005 11-5-0 0.688 nwe2001 11-5-0 0.688 rai1980 11-5-0 0.688 gnb1967 9-4-1 0.679 sfo1988 10-6-0 0.625 nyg2007 10-6-0 0.625
The next table shows each team's regular season points scored, points allowed, points differential, and differential per game for each team.
ram1999 526 242 284 17.8 was1991 485 224 261 16.3 chi1985 456 198 258 16.1 sfo1984 475 227 248 15.5 gnb1996 456 210 246 15.4 mia1972 385 171 214 15.3 pit1975 373 162 211 15.1 mia1973 343 150 193 13.8 dal1971 406 222 184 13.1 sfo1994 505 296 209 13.1 kan1969 359 177 182 13.0 gnb1966 335 163 172 12.3 den1998 501 309 192 12.0 sfo1989 442 253 189 11.8 den1997 472 287 185 11.6 nwe2004 437 260 177 11.1 rav2000 333 165 168 10.5 dal1992 409 243 166 10.4 pit1978 356 195 161 10.1 nyj1968 419 280 139 9.9 pit1979 416 262 154 9.6 dal1977 345 212 133 9.5 tam2002 346 196 150 9.4 dal1993 376 229 147 9.2 dal1995 435 291 144 9.0 gnb1967 332 209 123 8.8 nyg1986 371 236 135 8.4 pit1974 305 189 116 8.3 pit2005 389 258 131 8.2 rai1976 350 237 113 8.1 nyg1990 335 211 124 7.8 was1982 190 128 62 6.9 nwe2003 348 238 110 6.9 sfo1981 357 250 107 6.7 rai1983 442 338 104 6.5 was1987 379 285 94 6.3 clt1970 321 234 87 6.2 nwe2001 371 272 99 6.2 sfo1988 369 294 75 4.7 clt2006 427 360 67 4.2 rai1980 364 306 58 3.6 nyg2007 373 351 22 1.4
We can also sort the teams by Pythagorean record. The Pythagorean record is calculated by taking the points scored number raised to the 2.37th power, and dividing it by the sum of itself and the points allowed number raised to the 2.37th power. I've got a bit of evidence that indicates that the correct exponent is 2.60 instead of 2.37, but: 1) I'm not sure about that, and it's been on my to-do list to post about deriving the "correct" exponent for awhile; 2) in light of that, I'll go with the more generally accepted 2.37 number, since it doesn't matter too much, anyway. That link gives a full explanation of what the Pythagorean record is and why we should care about it.
Additionally, great defensive teams are generally undervalued when using the difference between points scored and points allowed, because a 35-17 win counts for more than a 13-0 win, despite it being reasonable to conclude that the latter win was more impressive or more dominant. Teams like the '02 Bucs, '78 Steelers and '00 Ravens shoot up this list, while the '98 Broncos, '68 Jets and '94 49ers fall a bit.
chi1985 0.878 pit1975 0.878 mia1973 0.877 mia1972 0.873 ram1999 0.863 gnb1996 0.863 was1991 0.862 sfo1984 0.852 gnb1966 0.846 kan1969 0.842 rav2000 0.841 dal1971 0.807 pit1978 0.806 tam2002 0.794 sfo1989 0.790 sfo1994 0.780 dal1992 0.775 nwe2004 0.774 den1997 0.765 dal1993 0.764 dal1977 0.760 den1998 0.759 pit1974 0.757 gnb1967 0.750 pit1979 0.749 nyg1990 0.749 nyg1986 0.745 pit2005 0.726 nyj1968 0.722 dal1995 0.722 was1982 0.718 rai1976 0.716 nwe2003 0.711 sfo1981 0.699 clt1970 0.679 nwe2001 0.676 was1987 0.663 rai1983 0.654 sfo1988 0.631 rai1980 0.601 clt2006 0.600 nyg2007 0.536
Note: by this method, the last two Super Bowl champions were the worst two of all time. The two teams are the only SB champs to allow 350 points in a season. The Giants, of course, have been at the bottom of each list presented here so far. Does that mean New York's the worst SB Champ ever?
To the extent that such a consensus exists, I'd posit that most have regarded the 2001 Patriots as the worst SB champion of all time. The 2006 Colts (last before this year's Giants in Pythagorean record) and the '88 49ers (last in actual record, tied with this year's Giants) were led by Manning and Montana, and both players were in their primes. Justifiable or not, that will exclude them from consideration for a majority of commentators. The '67 Packers weren't a very good team record-wide, but were middle of the pack in points differential and Pythagorean record, and were still The Lombardi Packers.
The '80 Raiders are probably the Pats best competitor for the title. The Silver and Black ranked last among the first 41 Super Bowl winners in points differential, third to last in record, and third to last in Pythagorean record. QB Jim Plunkett was never very good, and 1980 wasn't a particularly good year for him, either. Tom Flores won two Super Bowls but few consider him an elite coach, and his sub-.300 winning percentage in Seattle earns him no bonus points. Mark van Eeghen was nothing special (Antowain Smith-like?), and the Raiders ranked in the bottom half of the league in yards gained.
The '01 Patriots? New England ranked 19th in yards gained and 24th in yards allowed. Brady, Belichick, Light and Seymour were all unknowns at this point, and none of them besides Belichick were at an elite level in 2001. Whereas the '80 Raiders won four playoff games by 46 points, New England won its three playoff games by just thirteen points. The Pats beat better post-season opponents, but also won it particularly fluky ways. I think it's a pretty close fight between these two teams for the worst SB Champion ever. New England had four Pro Bowlers, Oakland six. According to the SRS, the Raiders have a +4.2 rating thanks to a slightly harder than average schedule, and the Patriots have a +4.3 rating thanks to a relatively easy schedule. (For first time readers of the blog, you can learn about the SRS here.) This one's a toss up, but do the Giants clearly steal the show?
New York had just one Pro Bowler. While Doug hasn't run the official 2007 SRS ratings yet, my less refined method (that usually comes within a decimal point or two) gives them a +3.3, thanks to having one of the ten hardest schedules in the league. That rating, of course, isn't very good for a Super Bowl champion. The Patriots, according to my preliminary system, rate at +20.1, which would be the highest ever by a wide margin. I've got no doubt that once Doug runs the numbers, New England's SRS rating will blow out every other team's since the merger.
Here's how the thirty-seven champs from 1970-2006 rank according to the SRS:
was1991 16.6 chi1985 15.9 gnb1996 15.3 pit1975 14.2 mia1973 13.2 nwe2004 12.8 sfo1984 12.7 pit1979 11.9 ram1999 11.9 sfo1994 11.6 mia1972 11.0 den1997 10.7 sfo1989 10.7 dal1992 9.9 dal1971 9.9 dal1995 9.7 dal1993 9.6 nyg1986 9.0 den1998 8.9 tam2002 8.8 rai1976 8.5 pit1978 8.2 rav2000 8.0 dal1977 7.8 pit2005 7.8 nyg1990 7.7 was1982 7.4 nwe2003 6.9 pit1974 6.8 rai1983 6.8 sfo1981 6.2 clt2006 5.9 sfo1988 4.8 nwe2001 4.3 rai1980 4.2 was1987 3.7 clt1970 0.4
The 2007 Giants will probably rank 2nd to last, or at best, third to last according to the SRS. You might wonder why the '70 Colts rate so poorly on this list; after all, Baltimore ranked 17th in winning percentage, 35th in Pythagorean record and 37th in differential. Well, the '70 Colts had the third easiest schedule of any team from 1970-2006, behind only the '70 Dolphins and the '99 Rams. That team had Unitas and won its three post season games by 30 points, but it certainly belongs in the discussion of the worst SB champion ever.
The '87 Skins ranked in the bottom ten in record, differential and Pythagorean record, and rank in the bottom three in SRS rating. If anything, those states are inflated by Washington's 3-0 record and +39 points differential in the three strike games. Washington was fortunate to avoid an excellent 49ers team in the playoffs, and Doug Williams and Jay Schroeder completed just 210 of 410 passes. This was a team with some good stars in their prime (Darrell Green, Gary Clark, Dexter Manley and Charles Mann), but was not a very deep team and won just two-thirds of its games played with non-strike players.
I think the '70 Colts, '80 Raiders, '87 Redskins, '01 Patriots and '07 Giants probably deserve their own subgroup as the five worst Super Bowl Champions of all time. The '88 49ers and '06 Colts might be close to them, but having two of the greatest QBs of all time eliminates them from this category (and no, I'm not being inconsistent; Unitas was in his last year as a starter for the Colts, and Brady was in his first year as a starter for the Pats). I'm trying not to be a Giants hater here, but I don't see how to objectively put this team among the 37 best Super Bowl winners.
I know the Giants of the playoffs were not the Giants of the regular season. New York went 0-4 against Dallas, Green Bay and New England in the regular season, losing by 46 points despite playing three of those games at home; in the playoffs, Big Blue went 3-0 against those opponents. But all Super Bowl Champions played well in the playoffs, right? That's why they went undefeated in the post-season. And fair or not, New York won its playoff games by just 20 points. This was not a dominating post-season by any stretch of the imagination, although I know they three of the four best teams in the league this year. But the thing is, most Super Bowl champions beat the best couple of teams in the league. Here's how the 42 Super Bowl winners rank in terms of margin of victory per game in the playoffs:
sfo1989 3 100 33.3 nyg1986 3 82 27.3 chi1985 3 81 27.0 rai1983 3 73 24.3 dal1992 3 69 23.0 tam2002 3 69 23.0 dal1977 3 64 21.3 den1998 3 63 21.0 sfo1994 3 62 20.7 was1991 3 61 20.3 sfo1984 3 56 18.7 pit1978 3 56 18.7 rav2000 4 72 18.0 sfo1988 3 54 18.0 mia1973 3 52 17.3 gnb1996 3 52 17.3 gnb1966 2 32 16.0 was1982 4 62 15.5 pit1979 3 46 15.3 gnb1967 3 44 14.7 dal1993 3 44 14.7 was1987 3 43 14.3 dal1971 3 40 13.3 dal1995 3 40 13.3 pit1974 3 39 13.0 rai1976 3 38 12.7 rai1980 4 46 11.5 nwe2004 3 34 11.3 pit2005 4 45 11.3 kan1969 3 33 11.0 nyg1990 3 31 10.3 clt1970 3 30 10.0 clt2006 4 40 10.0 den1997 4 39 9.8 pit1975 3 28 9.3 ram1999 3 24 8.0 sfo1981 3 20 6.7 nyj1968 2 13 6.5 mia1972 3 17 5.7 nwe2003 3 16 5.3 nyg2007 4 20 5.0 nwe2001 3 13 4.3
The Giants don't look very good here, and the '72 Dolphins poor showing is one of the larger reasons Miami isn't unanimously (or even generally) considered the best team of all time. The '83 Raiders escape the title of "bad Super Bowl Champion" because of the dominant post-season run, even if Los Angeles has less than impressive peripherals. The '89 49ers are often in the conversation for best team ever, and the dominant playoff performance is a good reason why.
The '01 Pats rank at the bottom of the list, and arguably their wins were even less impressive than the margin of victory shows. But New England was probably a better regular season team than the Giants, and beat some excellent playoff teams. I think it's too close to call definitively who was the worst Super Bowl champion of all time: the Colts, Redskins, Raiders, Giants and Pats are all in the mix. But if I had to choose one, I'd go with the Giants. New England, for all the easy knocks against them in 2001, did end up going 11-3 with Brady at the helm, and I'm willing to give them a slight pass for the two "Bledsoe" games.
One final pro-Giants note: I've often heard the '90 Giants called the worst Super Bowl champion ever. That seems really silly, based on this post. I understand that Giants team ranked 15th in the league in points scored, and beat two teams that might have been considered the best ever had they won the Super Bowl. The '90 49ers were gunning for the three-peat, and had started the season 10-0. The Bills were 13-2 before losing a meaningless week 17 game, led the league in points scored, and then scored 95 points in its first two playoff games. Buffalo had nine pro bowlers and a fun offense. Maybe those wins created some resentment for the '90 Giants. But New York ranked tied for 18th best record, and while it ranked 31st in differential, it was 26th in the more telling Pythagorean record statistic. Further, New York didn't even rank in the bottom ten according to SRS, and deserves some credit for beating two very good playoff teams. Those '90 Giants are probably in the bottom half of Super Bowl winners, but definitely aren't in the running for worst ever Super Bowl champ.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, February 6th, 2008 at 6:07 am and is filed under History, Statgeekery. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury,
My esteemed colleague Mr. Stuart has presented quite a case against my client. Me, I'm just an unfrozen caveman lawyer. I don't know who this Pythagorean is. Did he invent fire? I just don't know.
But what I do know is this. If a team just beat one of the historically great teams of all time, they are not the worst Super Bowl winner ever. If a team also won on the road at two 13-3 teams in the playoffs, they are not the worst Superbowl winner ever. If that team held one of the best offenses of all time to the 3rd lowest yardage total in the first half of a Super Bowl, they are not the worst Super Bowl winner ever. If that team went 11-1 on the road, they are not the worst Super Bowl winner ever.
Let me ask you this, which is more likely, that the worst Super Bowl winner ever comes from a season when they beat a 16-0 team in the Super Bowl, or from a season that takes place between the end of dynasty, and right before the start of another, when no truly dominant team emerges that season and going into the final week the teams that end up as #1 seeds haven't even clinched their divisions, and includes a controversial close road win over a team with a heart condition, and a win in the Super Bowl over team that played in no other conference championship games in surrounding seasons?
Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, I give you the 1980 Oakland Raiders.
And my client is entitled to no less than 2 million compensatory and 2 million punitive from Mr. Stuart.
Perhaps the case should be restated- were they the team with the least impressive regular season ever to win the Superbowl? IMO, you've made a nice case for that.
Were they the worst team to ever win the Superbowl? I don't think that's as easy to judge. They did, after all, beat what was the consensus greatest team ever until they lost.
BTW, on a related note (and I've submitted this question to Doug), is Eli Manning the first QB to lead the league in INT's and win the Superbowl in the same year?
Fascinating stuff. A few random thoughts based on Doug's post:
* Does it say something about the league right now in terms of parity that the Giants could pull this off?
* How should we account for trends? The Cowboys, Pats and Packers all were somewhat trending down. Obviously the Giants were trending up.
* Even though the Super Bowl was a great game, it was lacking a bit in that the Pats did not bring their A game. And this wasn't only because of the G-men; Brady had several unforced errors and the play calling for the Pats suffered. (Going for it on 4th and 13 comes to mind instead of the FG.)
* I think it was as much a match up issue as an overall team issue. The Giants, like the Eagles and Ravens, matched up well with the Pats (good pass ruch + running game).
i'm voting for pats of 01 as worst SB champ ever. no run game, minimal passing game from a Qb who was a game manager at that point in his career, solid defense and great special teams. People forget how important troy brown was to that offense that year between his receiving and his kicki/punt returns. if you did a position by position breakdown of the two teams, you would be hard pressed to give the 01 pats much of an edge, except for secondary and linebacker.
Vishal,
The answer's yes. Here's how each SB champion's leading interception thrower ranked among QBs in INTs thrown:
I am curious about this recent trend of Super Bowls being won by teams that entered the playoffs looking like they had little chance of winning.
2007-New York Giants
2006-Indianapolis Colts
2005-Pittsburgh Steelers
Is it just a fluke, or is this saying something about teams getting their players healthy for the playoffs? Are coaches strategizing for this, or has it just happened that way.
Here are my two cents, Richie: I don't think it's a trend at all.
The 2004 Steelers went 13-0 with Ben Roethlisberger starting at QB. 13-0!! In 2005, with the exact same team, Big Ben went 9-2 when healthy, with two one-score losses against division champs. This is a team that with a healthy Roethlisberger had got 22-2 over the past two seasons, and I wasn't surprised to see Pittsburgh run through the playoffs.'
The Colts had obviously been very strong for years, but the loss of Bob Sanders in '06 really hurt. You saw how good he was in the '06 post-season and the '07 regular season. When he was healthy for the playoffs, a Colts team that had won 26 of 32 games stormed to the title.
This year, I think, was the exception. I also suspect that the Steelers and Colts learned *something* from losing as the heavy favorites the year before.
Chase- thank you for confirming that. I was surprised that no one in the mainstream media picked up on that. Perhaps its just a trivial point b/c Eli's 20 picks were a lower league leading total than we normally see, but its striking that since the West Coast Offense (and efficient passing) have been popularized, we haven't seen guys in the top 10, or even top 15 in INT's win the big game.
Momentum is a hard factor to measure. The Pats went into the SuperBowl probably playing their worst football of the year, the Giants their best. It should be noted that the Giants did turn the ball over twice in scoring range- the Pats didn't play their best game, but the Giants didn't play a perfect game either.
Lots are blaming a bum ankle for Brady, but he was still good enough to make a lot of tough throws and he showed a cannon at the end of the game there. Don't forget Burress was also on a bum ankle (all year) and actually tore his MCL going into the game. Toomer's wrist is in a cast right now- he hurt it on their 2nd to last drive and managed to make 2 catches on the final drive.
It's a funny thing sports. But that's what happens when its one game to decide things. Exciting as heck.
If you are looking at the entire body of work for the regular season, then you can make a case that the Giants are one of the worst SB champs.
But if you consider the level at which the team was playing at the end of the post-season, the G-men of 2007 deserve more respect. Here is why:
-Two of the Giants worst losses came in the first two weeks of the season when they were learning a new defensive system and Strahan was still getting into playing shape.
-The Giants received key contributions in the later part of the season from many rookies who were either injured or hadn't yet seen significant action earlier in the season.
-The Giants went 7-1 during the regular season on the road and won every post-season game away from home. They set the NFL record with 11 straight road wins.
-They played the Patriots, considered by many to be the greatest time of all-time prior to losing in the SB, to a 52-52 tie over two games.
-Tuck, Strahan, Pierce, Burress are all Pro Bowl caliber players. They played at an All-Pro level during the Giants title run.
-The Giants didn't have a single Pro Bowl offensive lineman, but everyone of their 5 starters are high quality performers. As a unit, they are one of the best lines in the NFL.
-The Giants depth was remarkable for the free agency era and the G-men received winning contributions from players whose roles increased as the season progressed.
All of those are fair points, daBoss. And the Giants were a great team, and it's obviously far better to be the worst SB champ ever than to be the best team to never win the SB.
But you can't just say the Giants went 7-1 on the road without noting that they were a miserable 3-5 at home. I agree about Tuck, Strahan, Pierce and Burress, and the rest of your comments. The only thing I'd say is there's a ton of competition when you're talking about the worst SB winner of all time. Each team is really, really, really good, so in some sense we're splitting hairs.
I still think those bottom five teams are in a tier of their own. But reasonable people could disagree here.
I love this kind of topic. The 07 Giants are so interesting because they had the worst regular season ever by a SB champion, one of the most amazing playoff runs, and set the NFL record for consecutive road wins. Sure point differential is important, but going on the road and beating three different 13+ win teams with high scoring offenses is incredible. Beating the Patriots in the SB alone has to be the best playoff win any team has ever had. That keeps them out of the cellar here.
What happens in the next few seasons will say a lot about the Giants. If it was just the biggest fluke ever, they'll go back to mediocrity. If not, then I think we'll see this team as a serious SB contender for the NFC the next several years.
I'd go with the 01 Patriots as the worst because they deserved to be one-and-done with Brady fumbling. They were handed that game (of course Vinatieri had to nail an incredible FG first) and they were not impressive in the next playoff games. Troy Brown did in fact carry that team that season, and they had a lot of opportunistic play all year long.
I also buy that the 13-3 1990 Giants are not that great of a team. Another team with Belichick as a coach that relied on FG's to become champions. They hit one at the end of the NFC-C to win 15-13, and everyone knows the Norwood story. When you look at their roster 17 years later, they had LT, but not much else in terms of great, historic players. LT's the only guy in the HOF from that team, and I suppose Bill Parcells might join him one day. Other than that, no one else will be there.
To defend my 05 Steelers, I've seen people put them pretty low on a list like this. Meanwhile if you compare them to the 90 Giants, the 05 Steelers had the better QB, better RBs, better WRs, better O-line, arguably better TE, better D-line and Polamalu makes the secondary about a push. Giants were better at coaching, special teams and at LB, IMO. They did beat the best Buffalo team in the SB, but again, they shouldn't have. They also beat a very good but overrated 49ers team.
Seriously people, go to the 1990 49ers team page and look at their numbers. Roger Craig had an awful year, the running game overall wasn't that impressive (25th in ypc), Montana had a lot of yards but career high in INTs, they were 8th in scoring, only +1 in turnover differential, and their pythag was 11.5-4.5. They overachieved. If they completed the 3-peat, they would have been a fine SB team, but very unimpressive for a 14-2 team. The 87 and 92 49ers were better teams than the 90 one.
But back to what I was saying about the 05 Steelers. Their record and stats were hurt by Ben missing 4 games. They lost 5 games that year, and 4 of them were on the last play. 2 of those games went to OT with the 3rd string QB going the distance (Maddox). If you look at the 12 reg. season games + 4 playoff games Roethlisberger started as a full 16 game season, the Steelers scored 412 pts, allowed 250, led the league in YPA, Ben had 24 TDs/12 INTs, 5 rushing TDs, 99.4 rating, near the top in rushing offense and defense, and of course they did this against a pretty tough schedule. The average 6th seed is nothing like that team. They were good enough to be a #2. Jerome Bettis and Bill Cowher will more than likely be in the HOF. Hines Ward has a good chance (hey, Art Monk just went in). Troy Polamalu is at that point where he goes to the Pro Bowl every year no matter how bad he plays, and he has that distinguished look and is well-liked (key for "fame" votes). It's hard to go at safety, but he'll have an opportunity. Alan Faneca will get consideration, especially if he leaves the Steelers and continues to play well somewhere else. And the last guy I'll mention is Roethlisberger, who's on as good of a first 4 season pace to the HOF as any QB's been off to. Another championship would clinch it for several of these guys.
On a related note, does anyone know why the 97 Packers were so favored to beat the Broncos? Was it just a "NFC is far superior to the AFC" thing? Hard to believe a team with John Elway, Terrell Davis, Ed McCaffrey, Rod Smith, Shannon Sharpe, Gary Zimmerman, Mark Schlereth, Tom Nalen, Steve Atwater, Romanowski, Neil Smith, a reliable kicker and a very good head coach could be considered such underdogs.
Scott:
I think that's a fair question. I'm a Packers' fan what I recall was that the NFC was still considered the superior conference. The Packers beat the Niners convincingly in Candlestick to get there while Denver nipped the Steelers. The Packers were the defending champs + Favre always seems to inflate the betting line because he's Favre.
Looking at the stats, it doesn't seem obvious the Broncos should be so favored.
A couple of random comments:
1. Giants were 6-1 on the road and 1-0 on neutral fields in the regular season
2. '67 Packers were 9-2-1 and clinched their division, then lost two meaningless games. One was at LA, a team they then destroyed at home in the playoffs. One of their other losses came at BAL when the league MVP (Unitas) rallied the Colts to a late TD, a recovered onside kick, and another late TD (OK, technically Unitas had no role in the onside kick recovery).
3. I was a Colts fan at the time and am perfectly happy to have the '70 Colts named the worst SB champ of all time (not that the discussion is going that way). They won a terrible game including a disputed TD and too many errors to recount. They beat the only team at the time that had as big a reputation for "losing the big one" as they had. It doesn't matter how mediocre they were or how poorly they played in the SB - they won, and I still savor that win.
What I was looking at before the Super Bowl, in preparation to argue against a 19-0 Patriots team being the best ever, was average margin of victory in the playoffs, against the league's best teams (it would also have been hard for Patriots fans to disagree without appearing hypocritical, given their reasoning in the Manning-Brady debate). Anyway, the Giants rank 41st (5.0), ahead of only the 2001 Patriots (4.7). The 68 Jets also rank low (38th at 6.5). But what these teams have in common is a colossal super bowl upset, so how bad could they have been . If you are curious, the top 3 teams are the 89 49ers-33.3, 86 Giants-27.3 and 85 Bears-27.0, which I think makes .
a decent and arguable top 3 all time (even if the Giants are inflated by their 49-3 first round victory). anyway somehow the last message got entered early.
Oh, and I prefer the term "least impressive" to "worst." Worst implies bad, and you aren't bad if you win it all.
DICK JAURON WILL NEVER LOSE A SUPER BOWL
All I know is, it's infinitely better to be the worst Super Bowl winner ever than the best Super Bowl loser ever (a thread on that would be a good idea). Oh, and the '72 Dolphins still haven't lost a game. Sure, they didn't blow opponents away in the playoffs but just ask the 2007 Patriots what running up the score got them
And besides, they didn't exactly crush the Jags and Chargers either--the Jags game was tied at the half and the Chargers actually scored more times than the Pats did. The only thing the 2007 Patriots were really that good at in the postseason (until the 4th quarter of the Super Bowl that is, heh heh) was forcing the opposition to exchange 3 points for 7.
Interesting work. I would love to see the best losing SB teams. One thing to consider about the 2007/8 Giants is the number of rookies that had on their roster. 11 rookies I believe, which is a SB record, plus a number of 2nd year players (Jacobs) that are still developing.
Only time will tell, but perhaps the Giants are a work in progress?
Just a guess, but I would venture to say tah tthe 69 Colts,78 Cowboys,01 Rams, and 07 patriots were the best Super Bowl also rans ever. Three of the four were victims of monumnetal upsets and the Cowboys might have won Super Bowl XIII had a pass not been dropped in the end zone by a future Hall of Famer
One comment, only tangentially related to the main topic.
"Mark van Eeghen was nothing special (Antowain Smith-like?)"
I would argue that van Eeghen was a fine running back. I think you can make a case that from 1976-80 (as a whole), he was the best RB this side of Walter Payton.
The bottom line is that as bad as the Patriots played offensively, they had about 5 opportunities to win it on the last defensive drive and they choked. Dropped INT's, poor coverage, and an inability to stop the Giants on 3-and-very-long's and a 4th and 1.
The Giants are definitely the "worst" SB champion ever. But it doesn't matter. These types of wins are good for the league. People love to see the underdog overcome and this is exactly what the NFL had in mind when they opened up free agency. The Super Bowl is no longer a foregone conclusion like it used to be. Now, it's anybodies game. The next thing I'm hoping for is that a 7-9 team makes the playoffs and wins it all. Though there have been some close calls over the years, no 7-9 team has made it yet but someday I hope.
without examining the virtues of choosing '76 and '80 as the bounds of the years, from 76-80, Van Eeghen's rank on several measures:
4th in rushing yards with 5021 (Payton, Harris, Campbell; Delvin Williams was 5th with 4766)
16th in rec yds with 1332 (only Payton also had more rec yds and over 3500 rush yds)
2nd in total yds with 6353 (obvious from the above, Payton was #1 with 9285, Harris 3rd and Dorsett 4th)
Van Eeghen's yd/rush were only 3.95 compared to 3.97 for the rbs of the era as a whole. His 9.6 yd/rec was well above the era's 8.7 (and better than any of the rbs named above).
He had 2 HoF lineman (Upshaw and Shell) blocking for him plus a HoF TE (Casper) the entire time, which probably helped his stats - and lower his status. He never made a Pro Bowl according to this site's data, indicating that observers at the time never felt he was a top back.
Two of the top backs for this era, Campbell and Dorsett, played less than five fulls yrs in this span. VanE's stats though, compare well with Muncie's and Franco Harris' in these 5 years as well as Delvin Williams. VanE played every game those five years, which shows remarkable durability although it inflates his cumulative stats a little too.
I'd say he was better than Antowain Smith.
As for the question presented:
If you out run a cheetah with a Shelby Aero, that is not great.
If you out run a cheetah barefoot with two skinny legs, that is great.
With that in mind, the Giants took it all in a series of incredibly improbable events with a cast of no names.
Tuck, Tyree, Smith, Boss, Etc. All of these guys make up one of the greatest Super Bowl Champions ever.
I think only the Jets have beat a bigger Vegas spread than the Giants.
Dear sir,I am no spring chicken and since 1949 I have seen many football games ,the Chicago Bears of 1985-86 so far I would consider the best.Steve van Buren of the 48 and 49 Eagles were fair,I remember the snow bowl in chicago cardinals when they lost to the Eagles 7-0 when Van Buren scored the winning TD In the blizzard.Ah those were the days.Mr J.L POWELL.
Naming the 07 Giants the worst team to ever win a Super Bowl is by no means taking anything away from the 07 Giants. They had to win the Super Bowl just to qualify for the list. And any time you're being compared to Super Bowl winners, you're being complimented already. Now back to the discussion, the 07 Giants are the worst team ever to a win a Super Bowl. The 07 Patriots, although incredibly dominant and undefeated during the regular season; they did not have to face the dominating Cowboys of the mid-90s as the 94 San Francisco 49ers did. Deion Sanders would put the defensive clamps on Randy Moss & then the Niners safeties would just blanket the rest of the Patriot receivers, anchored by Murton Hanks. The 94 49er offense was very nearly as explosive as that of the 07 Patriots with Jerry Rice in his prime, along with John Taylor on the opposite side, a dominating Tight End in Brent Jones and they had a solid running attack led by Ricky Watters at tailback. You cap that of with one of the most dangerous dual-threat quarterbacks of all-time in Steve Young, and that offense could light up a stadium in a blink-of-an-eye. Almost any other season, the 94 Cowboys would've been the best team in football, except that they had the misfortune of playing in the same yr as the 94 49ers who defeated a team just loaded with Hall-of-Famers & great chemistry on both sides of the ball in Dallas, convincingly, by a score of 38-28 in the NFC Championship game at Candlestick Park.
Their defensive line had the 2 studs up front in Dana Stubblefield & Bryant Young, and All-pro Middle Linebacker Ken Norton Jr would take away all the 5-yd dink & dunk stuff Tom Brady so loves to do. That 49er defense as a unit was younger & more athletic than that of the 07 Patriots. Lawrence Maroney is going nowhere with Linebacker Gary Plummer clogging the middle of the field. If the 07 Patriots played the 94 49ers 10 times, I'd say the 94 49ers would win 7 of those. If the 07 Patriots played the 07 Giants 10 times, I'd say the 07 Patriots would win 9 of those, but the 07 Patriots weren't the best team of all-time right before Super Bowl 42. If you took every team that won or lost the Super Bowl before the actual game, I'd have the 94 49ers 1st, 89 49ers 2nd, 92 Cowboys 3rd, 84 49ers 4th, 07 Patriots 5th & then after them I'd have the 85 Bears 6th.
WORST? Did you say worst? Statistically, yes the Giants may be the "worst" Super Bowl Champs ever, but this team didn't win on statistics, and games are not decided by the statistics. This Giants team won purely on heart, effort, and they were hungrier than the Patriots, Packers, Cowboys, and Buccaneers. Statistics don't mean crap in any game, as the Patriots kindly showed us. They were 12 point favorites in the Super Bowl, but they looked flat, done for. If you took the Patriots statistics for the year and compared them with the Giants statistics, you would find that the Patriots did in fact beat the Giants in almost everything. In week 17, though, the Giants gave the Patriots all they had and lost by 3 points. In the Super Bowl, the Giants played worse than in week 17 and yet still won. And who really cares how much the teams won by in the playoffs? They won, and that's all that counts. It doesn't matter if you win by 100 points or 1, YOU WON. The Giants won. That's all that matters. And the fact that the Giants won the Super Bowl with a bunch of no-names is even more impressive than winning with names like Unitas, Brady, Farve, Sanders, and other names that nobody will ever forget.
I think a case could be made for the 67 packers as one of the "least best." There leading rusher was Ben Wilson who was out of the league the next year. Chuck Mercein was an important late pickup at RB and he was a castoff. Bart Starr had one of his worst seasons. There defense played clutch all season but really, they struggled all season long. But this all so subjective. One thing though in examining that team and looking at there previous NFL championship years, there defense was terrific!
Prof. Tinkletrousers-----The WORST winner statistically speaking had to have been the '01 Patriots. They were Ranked 19th on Offense and an even worse 24th on Defense. I hope that no team was ever any worse than that--that's bad enough. As for the Best S.B. loser---my vote goes to the '84 Dolphins. That same Team crushed the '85 Bears in the REG. season. But that was part of Dan Marino's problem---he could lead his Team to a win over almost anybody IN THE REG. SEASON. Unfortunately, he was Playoff challenged-(his Passer Rating went down to around 60 in his PO Losses).
A quick follow-up to that last post. Marino holds the (unofficial) NFL Record for Playoff games with 2 or more INT's. The Dolphins were a dismal 1-9 in those 10 games, and 3 of them were Conf. Champ. and S.B. games. There went 3 RINGS down the drain for Dan and his teammates.
Yes...the Giants were the worst team to ever win the super bowl, after beating the best team that lost one!
try nfl.usatoday.com for the vote on the worst SB rep of all time, 'boys,pats,colts are all there.
I'd say they were one of the weaker SB champions. Their playoff run to the SB came against a mediocre Tampa Bay team (though I was surprised Jeff Garcia, whose two career playoff wins came against the Giants, wa so ineffective against them), a Dallas Cowboys team with a quarterback who shows no postseason moxie (and is winless in two career playoff starts), and a Packers etam with a quarterback incapable of winning playoff games (Desmond Howard bailed him out in the Superbowl win) but manifestly able to throw them away - which of course he did.
And amid all that the Giants struggled to score, and even in winning the Superbowl they needed a miracle play they will never pull off again.
I've long said that weird things happen in playoff football games - between an NFC Title Game neither contestant wanted to win and a Superbowl in which a miracle play was needed forthe winner to pull it off, 2007's playoffs testify to that.
One could run your SRS on the season including the post-games... I wonder what it'd say....
i say the best teams ever are: 1989 49ers, 1962 packers, 1984 49ers, 1993 cowboys, 1975 steelers, 1972 dolphins,1991 redskins,1994 49ers, 1992 cowboys, 1985 bears,1978 steelers,1969 chiefs,1987 49ers, and 1973 dolphins