Another 'NFL Throwback' from YouTube - EVERY SUPER BOWL RANKED

[Bryan]

I'm not knocking them down as to what players/coaches did before or after. I just focus on the season a team made the SB and won or lost it. If a team catches lightening in a bottle, and rides that to a dominant season for just that year, it's weird to me to penalize.

I guess if I am judging Super Bowl-winning teams against each other, I need more historical context than "they won the Super Bowl that year!".

Since I am posting unpopular opinions, I'll add one more. The best defenses I've seen over the years...the 70's Steelers, the 85 Bears, the 91 Eagles...they were all thought to be great at the time of their dominance. The 2000 Ravens weren't like that. They were a good defense in 1999, but nothing approaching legendary. Same thing in 2001...a good defense that got taken apart by Kordell Stewart of all people in the postseason (Stewart would go on to produce 0 TDs and 4 turnovers the following week against the Pats). That would be like the Doomsday Defense losing to Bob Avellini in the 1977 divisional round.

In 2000, the Ravens came on strong at the end of the year and then dominated some bad QBs in the postseason. They were 6 point underdogs against the Raiders, and were aided immensely by Siragusa brazenly 'falling on" Rich Gannon and breaking Gannon's collarbone. Dennis Green was a terrible postseason coach, but I can't imagine the Vikings putting up 0 points offensively against the Ravens in that Super Bowl. They would have at least been a tougher matchup for the Ravens than the Giants. Maybe I'm being too harsh on the Ravens, but I think it they were really that good, they would have had more of a run of success.

[GameBeforeTheMoney]

I'm not knocking them down as to what players/coaches did before or after. I just focus on the season a team made the SB and won or lost it. If a team catches lightening in a bottle, and rides that to a dominant season for just that year, it's weird to me to penalize.

I guess if I am judging Super Bowl-winning teams against each other, I need more historical context than "they won the Super Bowl that year!".

Since I am posting unpopular opinions, I'll add one more. The best defenses I've seen over the years...the 70's Steelers, the 85 Bears, the 91 Eagles...they were all thought to be great at the time of their dominance. The 2000 Ravens weren't like that. They were a good defense in 1999, but nothing approaching legendary. Same thing in 2001...a good defense that got taken apart by Kordell Stewart of all people in the postseason (Stewart would go on to produce 0 TDs and 4 turnovers the following week against the Pats). That would be like the Doomsday Defense losing to Bob Avellini in the 1977 divisional round.

In 2000, the Ravens came on strong at the end of the year and then dominated some bad QBs in the postseason. They were 6 point underdogs against the Raiders, and were aided immensely by Siragusa brazenly 'falling on" Rich Gannon and breaking Gannon's collarbone. Dennis Green was a terrible postseason coach, but I can't imagine the Vikings putting up 0 points offensively against the Ravens in that Super Bowl. They would have at least been a tougher matchup for the Ravens than the Giants. Maybe I'm being too harsh on the Ravens, but I think it they were really that good, they would have had more of a run of success.

I hear where you're coming from. And, IMO, this is the slippery slope where a team's greatness and reputation gets based off of a month playoff run rather than a more credible sample size. Also, these things can get based off a team "identity" given by writers, fans, and sometimes even marketing departments.

The Ravens were identified by their defense, which was admittedly good. However, their offense has the reputation of being terrible, so that can really amplify how "great" the defense was. People forget that Jamaal Lewis and Priest Holmes combined for almost 2,000 yards rushing that year. Those were two really good running backs. I don't know what defensive stats are for teams that have a good defense and two running backs chewing up that kind of yardage and as a result that kind of clock when it's important, but my guess is a lot of those defenses didn't give up many points.

Not knocking the 2000 Ravens D - they were an outstanding unit. Good at forcing turnovers. Had a great Super Bowl run. BUT, I always thought that unit gets a bit more props because of Trent Dilfer being the quarterback and a lot of people bashing their offense.

[74_75_78_79_]

I'm not knocking them down as to what players/coaches did before or after. I just focus on the season a team made the SB and won or lost it. If a team catches lightening in a bottle, and rides that to a dominant season for just that year, it's weird to me to penalize.

I guess if I am judging Super Bowl-winning teams against each other, I need more historical context than "they won the Super Bowl that year!".

Since I am posting unpopular opinions, I'll add one more. The best defenses I've seen over the years...the 70's Steelers, the 85 Bears, the 91 Eagles...they were all thought to be great at the time of their dominance. The 2000 Ravens weren't like that. They were a good defense in 1999, but nothing approaching legendary. Same thing in 2001...a good defense that got taken apart by Kordell Stewart of all people in the postseason (Stewart would go on to produce 0 TDs and 4 turnovers the following week against the Pats). That would be like the Doomsday Defense losing to Bob Avellini in the 1977 divisional round.

In 2000, the Ravens came on strong at the end of the year and then dominated some bad QBs in the postseason. They were 6 point underdogs against the Raiders, and were aided immensely by Siragusa brazenly 'falling on" Rich Gannon and breaking Gannon's collarbone. Dennis Green was a terrible postseason coach, but I can't imagine the Vikings putting up 0 points offensively against the Ravens in that Super Bowl. They would have at least been a tougher matchup for the Ravens than the Giants. Maybe I'm being too harsh on the Ravens, but I think it they were really that good, they would have had more of a run of success.

I hear where you're coming from. And, IMO, this is the slippery slope where a team's greatness and reputation gets based off of a month playoff run rather than a more credible sample size. Also, these things can get based off a team "identity" given by writers, fans, and sometimes even marketing departments.

The Ravens were identified by their defense, which was admittedly good. However, their offense has the reputation of being terrible, so that can really amplify how "great" the defense was. People forget that Jamaal Lewis and Priest Holmes combined for almost 2,000 yards rushing that year. Those were two really good running backs. I don't know what defensive stats are for teams that have a good defense and two running backs chewing up that kind of yardage and as a result that kind of clock when it's important, but my guess is a lot of those defenses didn't give up many points.

Not knocking the 2000 Ravens D - they were an outstanding unit. Good at forcing turnovers. Had a great Super Bowl run. BUT, I always thought that unit gets a bit more props because of Trent Dilfer being the quarterback and a lot of people bashing their offense.

The 2000 Ravens, on offense, also had Shannon Sharpe and Jonathan Ogden.

Losing to the Giants, 41-0, with me un-warrants a 'what-if' Vikings play the Ravens. I think the most dangerous, make that the only dangerous, potential SB-opponent for the Ravens that year would have been the Rams. But their defense was absent from the year before thus not really deserving of making it back as seen in their one-and-done at New Orleans.

I'm not saying that the Ravens repeat in 2001, but "if it isn't broken" should have been applied at the QB position. Dilfer should have been let on just to see.

[Ness]

I'm not knocking them down as to what players/coaches did before or after. I just focus on the season a team made the SB and won or lost it. If a team catches lightening in a bottle, and rides that to a dominant season for just that year, it's weird to me to penalize.

I guess if I am judging Super Bowl-winning teams against each other, I need more historical context than "they won the Super Bowl that year!".

Since I am posting unpopular opinions, I'll add one more. The best defenses I've seen over the years...the 70's Steelers, the 85 Bears, the 91 Eagles...they were all thought to be great at the time of their dominance. The 2000 Ravens weren't like that. They were a good defense in 1999, but nothing approaching legendary. Same thing in 2001...a good defense that got taken apart by Kordell Stewart of all people in the postseason (Stewart would go on to produce 0 TDs and 4 turnovers the following week against the Pats). That would be like the Doomsday Defense losing to Bob Avellini in the 1977 divisional round.

In 2000, the Ravens came on strong at the end of the year and then dominated some bad QBs in the postseason. They were 6 point underdogs against the Raiders, and were aided immensely by Siragusa brazenly 'falling on" Rich Gannon and breaking Gannon's collarbone. Dennis Green was a terrible postseason coach, but I can't imagine the Vikings putting up 0 points offensively against the Ravens in that Super Bowl. They would have at least been a tougher matchup for the Ravens than the Giants. Maybe I'm being too harsh on the Ravens, but I think it they were really that good, they would have had more of a run of success.

Yeah if you think that's fair to judge the SB winners on teams outside of the year that they won the SB...so be it. It's not a discussion at that point, so proceed to believe.

I'd say the 2000 Ravens probably having the best run defense of all-time places them in as one of the best defenses of all time. You're right about the years in-between certainly. And as for that AFC championship game, Gannon getting hurt did aid the Ravens, but he was playing hideous before that injury along with the rest of the Raiders offense. The Vikings probably do score more than 0 points against the Ravens just playing the odds in any game, but losing to the Giants in that fashion was beyond pathetic. And if I remember correctly that Vikings team by the papermetrics were one of the worst teams to ever qualify despite their 11-5 record. Which in my head I keep coming back to the Ravens essentially having an easy schedule, but at the the same time there were wasn't a team that would have clearly had an advantage against them in the final stretch of the season. The league was weak that year. I feel weird penalizing the Ravens for taking advantage.

[Ness]

I guess if I am judging Super Bowl-winning teams against each other, I need more historical context than "they won the Super Bowl that year!".

Since I am posting unpopular opinions, I'll add one more. The best defenses I've seen over the years...the 70's Steelers, the 85 Bears, the 91 Eagles...they were all thought to be great at the time of their dominance. The 2000 Ravens weren't like that. They were a good defense in 1999, but nothing approaching legendary. Same thing in 2001...a good defense that got taken apart by Kordell Stewart of all people in the postseason (Stewart would go on to produce 0 TDs and 4 turnovers the following week against the Pats). That would be like the Doomsday Defense losing to Bob Avellini in the 1977 divisional round.

In 2000, the Ravens came on strong at the end of the year and then dominated some bad QBs in the postseason. They were 6 point underdogs against the Raiders, and were aided immensely by Siragusa brazenly 'falling on" Rich Gannon and breaking Gannon's collarbone. Dennis Green was a terrible postseason coach, but I can't imagine the Vikings putting up 0 points offensively against the Ravens in that Super Bowl. They would have at least been a tougher matchup for the Ravens than the Giants. Maybe I'm being too harsh on the Ravens, but I think it they were really that good, they would have had more of a run of success.

I hear where you're coming from. And, IMO, this is the slippery slope where a team's greatness and reputation gets based off of a month playoff run rather than a more credible sample size. Also, these things can get based off a team "identity" given by writers, fans, and sometimes even marketing departments.

The Ravens were identified by their defense, which was admittedly good. However, their offense has the reputation of being terrible, so that can really amplify how "great" the defense was. People forget that Jamaal Lewis and Priest Holmes combined for almost 2,000 yards rushing that year. Those were two really good running backs. I don't know what defensive stats are for teams that have a good defense and two running backs chewing up that kind of yardage and as a result that kind of clock when it's important, but my guess is a lot of those defenses didn't give up many points.

Not knocking the 2000 Ravens D - they were an outstanding unit. Good at forcing turnovers. Had a great Super Bowl run. BUT, I always thought that unit gets a bit more props because of Trent Dilfer being the quarterback and a lot of people bashing their offense.

The 2000 Ravens, on offense, also had Shannon Sharpe and Jonathan Ogden.

Losing to the Giants, 41-0, with me un-warrants a 'what-if' Vikings play the Ravens. I think the most dangerous, make that the only dangerous, potential SB-opponent for the Ravens that year would have been the Rams. But their defense was absent from the year before thus not really deserving of making it back as seen in their one-and-done at New Orleans.

I'm not saying that the Ravens repeat in 2001, but "if it isn't broken" should have been applied at the QB position. Dilfer should have been let on just to see.

Yes, I mentioned elsewhere I really wanted to see that SB matchup between the Rams, and Ravens. But as more, and more time goes on, I think the Rams' defense would probably let them down even against a Dilfer-led offense. Jermaine Lewis as a return man also helps Baltimore.

[Sonny9]

Yeah if you think that's fair to judge the SB winners on teams outside of the year that they won the SB...so be it. It's not a discussion at that point, so proceed to believe.

I'd say the 2000 Ravens probably having the best run defense of all-time places them in as one of the best defenses of all time. You're right about the years in-between certainly. And as for that AFC championship game, Gannon getting hurt did aid the Ravens, but he was playing hideous before that injury along with the rest of the Raiders offense. The Vikings probably do score more than 0 points against the Ravens just playing the odds in any game, but losing to the Giants in that fashion was beyond pathetic. And if I remember correctly that Vikings team by the papermetrics were one of the worst teams to ever qualify despite their 11-5 record. Which in my head I keep coming back to the Ravens essentially having an easy schedule, but at the the same time there were wasn't a team that would have clearly had an advantage against them in the final stretch of the season. The league was weak that year. I feel weird penalizing the Ravens for taking advantage.

From their birth in 1998 through the 2016 season, the Ravens run defense was always under 4.0 per carry against.

[Bryan]

Yeah if you think that's fair to judge the SB winners on teams outside of the year that they won the SB...so be it. It's not a discussion at that point, so proceed to believe.

I remember after SB XXI someone asking Bud Grant to compare the 86 Giants defense to the Steel Curtain defense, and Grant responded with "ask me again when the Giants have won four Super Bowls".

But I agree with all of your other points. The Ravens run D that year was dominant. And it is highly unlikely that either the Raiders with a healthy Gannon or the Vikings have much success against the Ravens in the postseason. The NFL just kind of sucked overall that year for whatever reason. This is a bad analogy, but I view the 2000 Ravens like the 1970 Colts. Took advantage of a weird year and put together a dominant defensive postseason run against average/ailing QBs (Carter, Blanda, Morton).