Professional Football Researchers Association Forum
PFRA is a nonprofit organization dedicated to the history of professional football. Formed in 1979, PFRA members include many of the game's foremost historians and writers.
I think that's kind of ridiculous, but I think you did mention a really overrated team: the 1985 Bears. They went 15-1 (winning a weak division in a walk) and routed an 11-5 AFC team quarterbacked by Tony Eason and coached by Raymond Berry; the 49ers went 15-1 and trounced a 14-2 team with Dan Marino (in his best year) at quarterback and Don Shula as coach. To my mind, those accomplishments are not remotely similar. It seems like you're giving them extra points for making a rap commercial, which is kind of the definition of overrated because it has nothing to do with what happens on the field.
I wouldn't say it was the toughest schedule in NFL history but I think in "Greatest Teams Ever" discussions, the 1985's Bears schedule is pretty remarkable in that they played and beat:
New England (11-5) x 2
NY Jets (11-5)
Dallas (10-6)
NY Giants (10-6)
Washington (10-6)
San Francisco (10-6)
LA Rams (11-5)
The only 10 wins teams they didn't beat in the entire NFL were Miami (L), the LA Raiders, and Denver Broncos.
Their division was weak, but they played a lot of the NFL's best
CSKreager wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2024 12:57 am
When the NFC won 13 SB’s in a row, the conference was NOT truly deep and stacked
Outside of the 85 Bears and 96 Packers- the 49ers and NFC East did most of the damage.
You cannot tell me with a straight face that Minnesota/New Orleans of that era would have been a touchdown favorite in the SB.
There's one set of data I want to share briefly now that we are talking about the NFC's streak of consecutive Super Bowl titles.
The StatMuse search I did a number of posts ago for the records of the NFC vs the AFC since the merger found the following records for the NFC vs the AFC in the years of the Super Bowl victory streak:
I guess it could be the way it turned out, but in that 13 year span, there are only four seasons where the NFC had a record of more than two games over .500 on the season vs its corresponding AFC (1989, 1991, 1992, and 1995).
Not that the teams who made the Super Bowl didn't play well vs the AFC, but some of the other teams in the conference that didn't go as far may not have played as well vs the AFC in the regular season.
I'd be more interested in looking at how the top half of each league did vs the other. I find most times when people are discussing depth, no one cares how the 1992 Bears did vs the 1992 Bengals. Nor should we. I think we all kind of have in our mind how the top teams in the conferences did. Where is that line for "top team"? I don't know? 10 wins? 8-8 or better?
Obviously the perception that the NFC was better or deeper is buoyed by the fact that for over a decade they kicked the teeth in of the AFC's best, but the AFC also had the problem of sending a lot of repeat losers to the SB. Buffalo and Denver soaked up 7 of those title slots for the AFC. Styles make fights and I think some of them were just really bad matchups for the AFC, but the AFC did have depth that I liked at certain points.
The NFC was able to build the depth argument around 6 different teams win the SB during that streak. (SF, Chi, NYG, Wash, Dal, GB,) and some of those being all-timer type teams.
I think that's kind of ridiculous, but I think you did mention a really overrated team: the 1985 Bears. They went 15-1 (winning a weak division in a walk) and routed an 11-5 AFC team quarterbacked by Tony Eason and coached by Raymond Berry; the 49ers went 15-1 and trounced a 14-2 team with Dan Marino (in his best year) at quarterback and Don Shula as coach. To my mind, those accomplishments are not remotely similar. It seems like you're giving them extra points for making a rap commercial, which is kind of the definition of overrated because it has nothing to do with what happens on the field.
I wouldn't say it was the toughest schedule in NFL history but I think in "Greatest Teams Ever" discussions, the 1985's Bears schedule is pretty remarkable in that they played and beat:
New England (11-5) x 2
NY Jets (11-5)
Dallas (10-6)
NY Giants (10-6)
Washington (10-6)
San Francisco (10-6)
LA Rams (11-5)
The only 10 wins teams they didn't beat in the entire NFL were Miami (L), the LA Raiders, and Denver Broncos.
Their division was weak, but they played a lot of the NFL's best
The NFC Central wasn't THAT bad a division- GB was 8-8, Minnesota a respectable 7-9 after the Les Steckel disaster, and Detroit even at 7-9 beat 4 playoff teams.
GameBeforeTheMoney wrote: ↑Sat Jun 01, 2024 12:59 pm
Plus they had an incredible list of names on that coaching staff. Green Bay just flat out couldn't beat the Cowboys. Period. Especially at Dallas. Once free agency/age/injury hit the Cowboys, then the Packers took over for their back-to-back NFC titles. Those Packers weren't as good as the Cowboys and 49ers in the mid-90s but they were very good. Any team with Reggie White and LeRoy Butler on defense with Brett Favre and Sterling Sharpe on offense is a threat. And they knocked out SF in 95 after losing Sharpe.
I remember being relieved when the Panthers beat the Cowboys in the 96 playoffs. I knew the Packers could beat Carolina, but they always had problems with Dallas. They destroyed the Cowboys in the 97 regular season, but there wasn't really anything at stake in that game.
There was a lot at stake in the 1997 game, besides Green Bay trying to break their losing streak against Dallas. Both teams were locked into 3-team division races. Coming into the game, Green Bay was tied with both Minnesota and Tampa Bay with an 8-3 record (and they were coming off a shocking upset loss to an 0-10 Colts team playing with their backup QB.) Dallas and Washington, at 6-5, were both a game behind the 7-4 Giants. So this was definitely a meaningful game.
CSKreager wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2024 12:57 am
When the NFC won 13 SB’s in a row, the conference was NOT truly deep and stacked
Outside of the 85 Bears and 96 Packers- the 49ers and NFC East did most of the damage.
You cannot tell me with a straight face that Minnesota/New Orleans of that era would have been a touchdown favorite in the SB.
There's one set of data I want to share briefly now that we are talking about the NFC's streak of consecutive Super Bowl titles.
The StatMuse search I did a number of posts ago for the records of the NFC vs the AFC since the merger found the following records for the NFC vs the AFC in the years of the Super Bowl victory streak:
I guess it could be the way it turned out, but in that 13 year span, there are only four seasons where the NFC had a record of more than two games over .500 on the season vs its corresponding AFC (1989, 1991, 1992, and 1995).
Not that the teams who made the Super Bowl didn't play well vs the AFC, but some of the other teams in the conference that didn't go as far may not have played as well vs the AFC in the regular season.
I'd be more interested in looking at how the top half of each league did vs the other. I find most times when people are discussing depth, no one cares how the 1992 Bears did vs the 1992 Bengals. Nor should we. I think we all kind of have in our mind how the top teams in the conferences did. Where is that line for "top team"? I don't know? 10 wins? 8-8 or better?
Obviously the perception that the NFC was better or deeper is buoyed by the fact that for over a decade they kicked the teeth in of the AFC's best, but the AFC also had the problem of sending a lot of repeat losers to the SB. Buffalo and Denver soaked up 7 of those title slots for the AFC. Styles make fights and I think some of them were just really bad matchups for the AFC, but the AFC did have depth that I liked at certain points.
The NFC was able to build the depth argument around 6 different teams win the SB during that streak. (SF, Chi, NYG, Wash, Dal, GB,) and some of those being all-timer type teams.
I can totally see why this would be more of interest, and would bear more leverage in a conversation on which conferences were better and by how much.
Not every team had a chance to win a title after all. In my free time one of these days, I might calculate the records vs the other conference for the top five or six teams in each conference in these years. But for now, that's how the entirety of the NFC did against the AFC in those years.
I think that's kind of ridiculous, but I think you did mention a really overrated team: the 1985 Bears. They went 15-1 (winning a weak division in a walk) and routed an 11-5 AFC team quarterbacked by Tony Eason and coached by Raymond Berry; the 49ers went 15-1 and trounced a 14-2 team with Dan Marino (in his best year) at quarterback and Don Shula as coach. To my mind, those accomplishments are not remotely similar. It seems like you're giving them extra points for making a rap commercial, which is kind of the definition of overrated because it has nothing to do with what happens on the field.
I wouldn't say it was the toughest schedule in NFL history but I think in "Greatest Teams Ever" discussions, the 1985's Bears schedule is pretty remarkable in that they played and beat:
New England (11-5) x 2
NY Jets (11-5)
Dallas (10-6)
NY Giants (10-6)
Washington (10-6)
San Francisco (10-6)
LA Rams (11-5)
The only 10 wins teams they didn't beat in the entire NFL were Miami (L), the LA Raiders, and Denver Broncos.
Their division was weak, but they played a lot of the NFL's best
Tampa Bay was weak, but if you subtract the 2 losses to the Bears from their records, the Packers were 8-6 against the rest of the league, while the Vikings and Lions were both 7-7.
I think that's kind of ridiculous, but I think you did mention a really overrated team: the 1985 Bears. They went 15-1 (winning a weak division in a walk) and routed an 11-5 AFC team quarterbacked by Tony Eason and coached by Raymond Berry; the 49ers went 15-1 and trounced a 14-2 team with Dan Marino (in his best year) at quarterback and Don Shula as coach. To my mind, those accomplishments are not remotely similar. It seems like you're giving them extra points for making a rap commercial, which is kind of the definition of overrated because it has nothing to do with what happens on the field.
I wouldn't say it was the toughest schedule in NFL history but I think in "Greatest Teams Ever" discussions, the 1985's Bears schedule is pretty remarkable in that they played and beat:
New England (11-5) x 2
NY Jets (11-5)
Dallas (10-6)
NY Giants (10-6)
Washington (10-6)
San Francisco (10-6)
LA Rams (11-5)
The only 10 wins teams they didn't beat in the entire NFL were Miami (L), the LA Raiders, and Denver Broncos.
Their division was weak, but they played a lot of the NFL's best
Tampa Bay was weak, but if you subtract the 2 losses to the Bears from their records, the Packers were 8-6 against the rest of the league, while the Vikings and Lions were both 7-7.
Tampa Bay was abysmal and GB and Minny got to tack on two wins vs them. Detroit actually lost to Tampa in one of their matchups.
Perhaps "weak" was a tad unfair as while Tampa Bay was horrendous.... Detroit was only slightly below average....and GB and Minny I suppose you could make the argument they were the definition of average once you took everything into account.
What is somewhat ironic is TB gave Chicago two of their closest games that seasons. Talk about sleepwalking vs a bad opponent. The Bears were trailing the Bucs 28-17(?!) at halftime of their season opener and were trailing 12-3(?!) at halftime of their second matchup.
I wouldn't say it was the toughest schedule in NFL history but I think in "Greatest Teams Ever" discussions, the 1985's Bears schedule is pretty remarkable in that they played and beat:
New England (11-5) x 2
NY Jets (11-5)
Dallas (10-6)
NY Giants (10-6)
Washington (10-6)
San Francisco (10-6)
LA Rams (11-5)
The only 10 wins teams they didn't beat in the entire NFL were Miami (L), the LA Raiders, and Denver Broncos.
Their division was weak, but they played a lot of the NFL's best
Tampa Bay was weak, but if you subtract the 2 losses to the Bears from their records, the Packers were 8-6 against the rest of the league, while the Vikings and Lions were both 7-7.
Tampa Bay was abysmal and GB and Minny got to tack on two wins vs them. Detroit actually lost to Tampa in one of their matchups.
Perhaps "weak" was a tad unfair as while Tampa Bay was horrendous.... Detroit was only slightly below average....and GB and Minny I suppose you could make the argument they were the definition of average once you took everything into account.
What is somewhat ironic is TB gave Chicago two of their closest games that seasons. Talk about sleepwalking vs a bad opponent. The Bears were trailing the Bucs 28-17(?!) at halftime of their season opener and were trailing 12-3(?!) at halftime of their second matchup.
Always found that strange, how a Leeman Bennett 2-14 train wreck gave the Bears a ton of trouble twice. Week 1 I always look at as the most deceptive of the season and a lot of what happens there (because everyone is so hyped) is often magnified and exaggerated so much. Teams that are predicted to be awful sometimes pull off their one upset, and then go on to win 2-3 more games. Plenty of SB winners and contenders stagger out at 0-1...it all becomes ancient history
Wilder's 166 yards on 27 carries (6+ ypc) was also by far the worst total the Bears gave up all season. The next time they played Tampa Wilder did zilch.
I think it had at least something to do with Ditka's and Ryan's egos and personality. I wonder if they didn't have a lot more invested emotionally in beating the top teams than they did in small potatoes like Tampa Bay.
