Best Teams of All Time (super bowl winners)

**Corvus Corax** · 02-06-2016, 03:13 AM

1) The statistical simulation method of comparing these teams has no validity.

2) IMHO, the most impressive Superbowl champion has to be the 1969 AFL Kansas City Chiefs in SB IV. They manhandled and physically punished a very impressive NFL Minnesota Vikings team that looked just as unbeatable as the 1968 Colts (who they destroyed 52-14 in September of 1969) both offensively and defensively. With the benefit of hindsight regarding the outcome of SB III, there was no way that the 11 to 13-point favorite Vikings would not take the Chiefs seriously. There was no way that the Chiefs would pull off another major upset for the AFL in consecutive years. Yet it happened and I was shocked by how it happened (23-7). And I was also very pleased because it took a great deal of the 'sting' out of SB III (i.e., Baltimore was no longer alone in losing to an AFL city).

3) It's funny but not surprising that the 1970 Colts are dead last in this list. SB V was referred to as the 'Blunder Bowl' because of the eight or so turnovers in the game. Actually it was one of the most physical, hardest-hitting SBs of all time. Both defenses dominated the game. The 16-13 game was so close that the MVP was from the losing side (DB Chuck Howley of Dallas). The game was totally in doubt until MLB Mike Curtis intercepted a deflected pass which ultimately set up the winning field goal. Only Baltimore and Dallas fans could appreciate this one.

CCx

**The Excellector** · 02-06-2016, 03:13 AM

There is something to be said for answering the pressure of going undefeated. So many so called better teams have yet to do it. There's an immense amount of pressure behind that. Just food for thought.

**Corvus Corax** · 02-06-2016, 03:58 AM

Originally Posted by The Excellector

There is something to be said for answering the pressure of going undefeated. So many so called better teams have yet to do it. There's an immense amount of pressure behind that. Just food for thought.

It raises the question: Is a solid Superbowl contender OBLIGATED to continue a regular-season undefeated streak at the risk of losing the capability/capacity of remaining a contender? For example, does such a team risk injury to key players when there is nothing left to achieve (i.e., No. 1 playoff seed already secured)? In recent years, we have seen only one example of such a team. The 2007 Patriots chose to extend the streak to finish the regular season 16-0. Did finishing 18-1 suggest that they made a bad decision? I don't think so. Finishing 19-0 would have set them apart by consensus.

On the other hand, when Carolina lost at Atlanta in late December, that certainly relieved the Panthers of that 'pressure'. They were no longer preoccupied with extending the streak and, instead, could focus all of their attention on what was in front of them.

CCx

**Ravskins** · 02-06-2016, 11:59 AM

Simulations? Unless the teams were adjusted to account for the differences in their eras then the outcomes are totally bogus. Never liked these comparing teams from different points of time.

#1 tied 2000 and 2012 Baltimore Ravens

**GreatWhiteNorthRaven** · 02-06-2016, 12:27 PM

This list makes me wish I was alive to watch those teams in the 60's, 70's and 80's. Makes it difficult to assess without knowing the times.

But glad to see the Ravens up there

**JimZipCode** · 02-06-2016, 12:31 PM

Originally Posted by Corvus Corax

The 2007 Patriots chose to extend the streak to finish the regular season 16-0. Did finishing 18-1 suggest that they made a bad decision? I don't think so.

The Patriots did not lose because they chose to extend the streak. They lost because they played the Giants in the reg season (finale?), and it was a dog fight, and the Giants therefore knew that they could compete with them.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

**lovefootball** · 02-06-2016, 03:56 PM

SB has been over rated for a while now. The team that got hot just before post season, was a team that just barely made post season. Don't recall that happening early on. A dominate team went to post season, no luck involved. A great team back then went to the SB . The winners earned that victory. But there were losers who had great players and a good regular season. Jim Kelly comes to mind as a QB who never won a SB ring, but was a great QB until the SB game. Fran Tarkenton was another who never got a SB ring.

Players like that were awesome to watch and they had a team that was good on defense and offense. Now, it's one or the other. Last dominate team to win the SB was the Hawks with Wilson, dismantling the broncos big time. Shame the hawks let the pats win last year.