Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This isn't about the "worst" Super Bowl; many say that was Super Bowl V, where the Colts and Cowboys both made lots of mistakes.
To clarify, this is about which Super Bowl had the weakest two teams overall; where neither team would go down in history as one of the greats no matter which came out victorious. All to do with the combination of teams involved, nothing to do with the game itself.
I'd like to see what you all come up with. I'm thinking 2011 Giants vs Patriots - the Giants had the worst record of any champion at 9-7, pulling off a second unlikely victory against the Patriots. Despite being 13-3, the Patriots also fielded perhaps their worst Super Bowl team in the Bill Belichick era. The 2001 team wasn't spectacular, but the 2011 team had a bad defense that ranked 31st overall. So, Super Bowl XLVI had a very average team that managed to reach - and win - the Super Bowl, against a team with a lousy defense.
Before that game, I had a number of seasons in mind for weakest Super Bowl duos, but this one has to take the cake in my opinion. Who would you choose?
Last edited by Griffland219; 06-17-2017 at 02:24 AM..
I looked back and definitely confirm what you state. The 2011 Giants-Patriots takes the cake. The Giants had injury issues that can be attributed to the 9-7 mark, but even so, it was crazy how inconsistent they could be during the Coughlin era; awful for weeks at a time and then suddenly great. Everyone who followed the Patriots closely both that season and the next knew the records were a mirage and indicative of a modern day NFL that lacks quality teams; not hard to win 12 or 13 games and when you play in a bad division and then play a crappy .500 type team that is usually your 4 seed, you have one challenging home game to only win to get to a SB. Welcome to today's mediocrity riddled NFL.
A close runner-up would be Bears-Colts in 2006. Rex Grossman vs an historically awful Colts run D. But when they got a safety back of all things, the Colts D shockingly looked nothing like it did in the regular season. Hence I would not call the Colts the worst, but at the point the regular season ended, I thought they would get annihilated by either KC or at Baltimore, but that was not the same Colts team I had become so use to seeing in the Peyton Manning era. That Baltimore game shocked me far more than the 21-3 comeback the next week vs the Pats.
I looked back and definitely confirm what you state. The 2011 Giants-Patriots takes the cake. The Giants had injury issues that can be attributed to the 9-7 mark, but even so, it was crazy how inconsistent they could be during the Coughlin era; awful for weeks at a time and then suddenly great. Everyone who followed the Patriots closely both that season and the next knew the records were a mirage and indicative of a modern day NFL that lacks quality teams; not hard to win 12 or 13 games and when you play in a bad division and then play a crappy .500 type team that is usually your 4 seed, you have one challenging home game to only win to get to a SB. Welcome to today's mediocrity riddled NFL.
A close runner-up would be Bears-Colts in 2006. Rex Grossman vs an historically awful Colts run D. But when they got a safety back of all things, the Colts D shockingly looked nothing like it did in the regular season. Hence I would not call the Colts the worst, but at the point the regular season ended, I thought they would get annihilated by either KC or at Baltimore, but that was not the same Colts team I had become so use to seeing in the Peyton Manning era. That Baltimore game shocked me far more than the 21-3 comeback the next week vs the Pats.
Not hard to win 12-13 games in todays NFL?
How come no other teams can seem to do it then????
Ridiculous to assert that the 2011 Pats were part of the "weakest duos" of teams in the SuperBowl...
13-3 record, 3rd ranked scoring offense and 15th ranked scoring defense....there have been worse teams in the SB BY FAR
I believe that Patriots team had an injured Gronk in the super bowl and for the playoff run so if you factor that in, then that would also contribute to it being one of the poorest duos in Super Bowl history. However, you have a lot of successful recent prior history with both those clubs. So maybe they were not that bad.
It's an interesting question. There has to be a worst and a bottom three but it's going to be hard for anyone to agree on. By default any team that makes the super bowl is pretty darn good.
How come no other teams can seem to do it then????
Ridiculous to assert that the 2011 Pats were part of the "weakest duos" of teams in the Super Bowl...
13-3 record, 3rd ranked scoring offense and 15th ranked scoring defense....there have been worse teams in the SB BY FAR
Not the topic; worst DUO of teams was the question posed. 12-13 wins isn't easy- the point is that it isn't the end-all, be-all it once was. If you were 13-3 in yesteryear's NFL, it meant you were elite. The scheduling formats and lack of quality teams, and so forth equates to misleading records. Not unusual in the modern era for teams with 13+ wins to struggle in the playoffs. Patriot fans acknowledged themselves in my parts that those teams who met the Ravens two years running weren't all that good....scoring ranks are meaningless and are irrelevant to those who watch the team(s) regularly.
Not the topic; worst DUO of teams was the question posed. 12-13 wins isn't easy- the point is that it isn't the end-all, be-all it once was. If you were 13-3 in yesteryear's NFL, it meant you were elite. The scheduling formats and lack of quality teams, and so forth equates to misleading records. Not unusual in the modern era for teams with 13+ wins to struggle in the playoffs. Patriot fans acknowledged themselves in my parts that those teams who met the Ravens two years running weren't all that good....scoring ranks are meaningless and are irrelevant to those who watch the team(s) regularly.
13 win teams are still "elite" and the question was the worst "duo" of teams...
If one of the teams in that "duo" has 13 wins and is top 3 in the NFL in scoring then one of that "duo" doesn't belong in a "worst" anything category
Mod edit---one sentence deleted.
Scoring ranks are hardly irrelevant and are the best way to compare various teams across the league
Been watching the NFL and the Pats for over 40 years. Went to my first Pats game in 1974....plenty of good to great teams have struggled in the playoffs hardly a new phenomenon it's the nature of a single elimination tournament
Well since you want to base this question based on records, I suppose we can just base it on combined records. There is no BS. Simple opinion (mod edit-one sentence deleted)
'Scoring ranks are hardly irrelevant and are the best way to compare various teams across the league'
All the while ignoring its paltry defensive ranking, dubious strength of wins, as well as struggles vs inferior competition. Two sides to every coin. Your opinion is just that...opinion. That is why we debate this stuff. There is no right or wrong answer and even strength of victory, for example, is a subjective endeavor that can be based on a myriad of factors besides overall opponents' records.
If you want to simply compile SB participant's combined records, which it sounds like that is your end-all, be-all parameter (mod edit-one sentence deleted), then by all means. (edit-one sentence deleted) If the Nfc rep was my opinion of an average, typical representative, I probably wouldn't contemplate the 2011-12 SB for this distinction.
This isn't the easiest question to answer here--which actually is good!
I'm going to go with SB-XXII. And the reason why is because of the distraction of the 1987 NFL players strike. The Redskins finished with an 11-4 season, the Broncos coming in with a 10-4-1 season. Good seasons, but not great seasons. There certainly was a distraction with the New York Giants, winner of SB-XXI. In 1987 they finished with a 6-9 record.
It's to Joe Gibbs credit to have three super bowl wins in a ten year span. What is impressive to me is that they came every four years or so (1982, 1987, 1991) He didn't have the luxury of free agency to sign blue chip players and have a quick super bowl run, he kept on remaking the squad. Three different qb's were involved in the three wins, Gibbs was able to adapt to their strengths. Hopefully some longtime Redskins fans will weigh in here regarding how Gibbs kept on reworking the roster to be consistently in the playoff mix for that ten year run.
Denver on the other hand was a one man band on offense-John Elway. The Broncos had four pro bowlers on defense but on offense he had just journeyman players-no all pros or pro bowlers. Losing Vance Johnson with the lacerated kidney in the Houston playoff game didn't help manners much. To prove my point Denver's running stats were 68 yards on 14 carries with Steve Sewell, Gene Lang, and Sammy Winder. Elway did pad his stats in the second half and threw for 257 yards but was 14 for 38 with 2 passes for nearly 100 yards in the first couple minutes of the game. From then on Elway was somewhat under siege, IIRC he was sacked 6 times. Seems like it was more than that. Heh, I was at that game-I know!
The Redskins had the Broncos number on defense, even though it was nearly all in the second quarter. When the dust had cleared, Doug Williams went 18 for 29 with 340 yards and 4 td's, all in the second quarter-a super bowl record. And don't forget the other super bowl record held by Timmy Smith with 204 yards rushing. By 1989 he was out of the league. And sadly Williams was out of the league the year after that.
But Joe Gibbs was able to rebuild the club and four years later the Redskins won their third super bowl. I think there could have been another super bowl win or two coming from him but he felt a career change was in order.
This isn't the easiest question to answer here--which actually is good!
I'm going to go with SB-XXII. And the reason why is because of the distraction of the 1987 NFL players strike. The Redskins finished with an 11-4 season, the Broncos coming in with a 10-4-1 season. Good seasons, but not great seasons. There certainly was a distraction with the New York Giants, winner of SB-XXI. In 1987 they finished with a 6-9 record.
It's to Joe Gibbs credit to have three super bowl wins in a ten year span. What is impressive to me is that they came every four years or so (1982, 1987, 1991) He didn't have the luxury of free agency to sign blue chip players and have a quick super bowl run, he kept on remaking the squad. Three different qb's were involved in the three wins, Gibbs was able to adapt to their strengths. Hopefully some longtime Redskins fans will weigh in here regarding how Gibbs kept on reworking the roster to be consistently in the playoff mix for that ten year run.
Denver on the other hand was a one man band on offense-John Elway. The Broncos had four pro bowlers on defense but on offense he had just journeyman players-no all pros or pro bowlers. Losing Vance Johnson with the lacerated kidney in the Houston playoff game didn't help manners much. To prove my point Denver's running stats were 68 yards on 14 carries with Steve Sewell, Gene Lang, and Sammy Winder. Elway did pad his stats in the second half and threw for 257 yards but was 14 for 38 with 2 passes for nearly 100 yards in the first couple minutes of the game. From then on Elway was somewhat under siege, IIRC he was sacked 6 times. Seems like it was more than that. Heh, I was at that game-I know!
The Redskins had the Broncos number on defense, even though it was nearly all in the second quarter. When the dust had cleared, Doug Williams went 18 for 29 with 340 yards and 4 td's, all in the second quarter-a super bowl record. And don't forget the other super bowl record held by Timmy Smith with 204 yards rushing. By 1989 he was out of the league. And sadly Williams was out of the league the year after that.
But Joe Gibbs was able to rebuild the club and four years later the Redskins won their third super bowl. I think there could have been another super bowl win or two coming from him but he felt a career change was in order.
I'd say the above is the reason Gibbs is in the HoF.
But, I don't agree with that being the worst teams. And, honestly, Gibbs never had to rebuild the entire roster.. He had to fill in pieces. Remember that Art Monk was there for all 4 appearances. Gary Clark and Ricky Sanders for the last 2.
The OL.. Russ Grimm was there for all 3.. Dave Butz and Mark May for 2 of the 3.. On the DL side.. Dexter Manley was there for 2, Charles Mann for all 3.
Sorry.. I jumped between appearances and wins there. But, you get the point.
The pieces he did have to replace.. He made quality replacements.. Now, I would agree that '87 team was the worst of the 3.. that being mainly due to the patchwork running game. Also, remember, he won all three replacement games. The last one being against many of the Dallas regulars. I was actually there for the first game against the Cardinals. Anthony Allen to this day holds the single game receiving record.. Something like 287 yards.
The quality replacements.. Sending Jay Schroeder and getting Jim Lachey.. That wound up being a steal. Was it Lohmiller who was hurt in 87 and they signed Ali Haji-Sheik to replace him for the Super Bowl run.. No.. Who was the kicker.. Jess Atkinson? Yeah.. and after the first Super Bowl win, they got Darrell Green as the last pick in the first round.
You want more amazing through that? In the 1980's the Redskins had THREE first round draft choices.. who were the three? The aforementioned Darrell Green.. Another HoFer in Art Monk and Mark May. So, he did all this pretty much without the benefit of first round draft picks.
This is a very hard question and obviously will be subjective.. But it's hard to find a Super Bowl where BOTH teams are 'bad'.. I mean, my vote would probably go to the Giants/Ravens in 35. The Giants were not really all that good, even with a 12-4 record... The Ravens offense wasn't very good, but that defense was one of the greats..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
