1985 Bears More Dominant Than 2007 Patriots

[cincy]

You make some good points about schedule differences not being included in the ratings. Just too time consuming for me to add that right now. But I don't think it would have that much impact since teams play so many games and will always play some very strong teams and some very weak teams.

I have heard people mention that the Patriots played such a tough schedule in 2007. I did the math and their opponents had a combined record of 120-136. I realize 16 of those loses were against the Patriots so that comes out as 120 wins and 120 loses for their opponents. I realize the Patriots played some tough teams but they also played in an easy division and got 2 games against each division opponent so it all balanced out.

Thanks for the comments and let me know if you ever come up with some alternate ratings since it is interesting to see how they compare.

[cincy]

I reviewed all the comments and appreciate the feedback. I agree with the comments about players being bigger, stronger and faster now than they were many years ago so current champions would likely beat champions from many years in the past if these teams could actually play. But I think we can compare teams across different eras by evaluating how dominant each team was compared with other teams that same season. The 2007 Patriots and 1985 Bears both won 3 more games than the 2nd best team and were clearly the dominant teams in the regular season. However, the Bears followed this up with 3 dominant playoff victories. The 2007 Patriots playoff performance so far ranks in 33rd place out of 42 Superbowl champions based on their average playoff point difference of 10.0. I don’t see how the 2007 Patriots season can be considered more dominant than the 1985 Bears season when the Patriots performance in the games that count the most (playoff games) has been below average compared with the other Superbowl champions. The 2007 Patriots had the most dominant regular season and if someone wants to say the 2007 Patriots had a better season than the 1985 Bears I could understand that since the Patriots are undefeated but I would not agree the 2007 Patriots season was the most dominant season in NFL history. Below is the list of the 5 teams (from the Superbowl era) that had top 10 regular season and top 10 post season performances:

1985 Bears
1989 49ers
1991 Redskins
1984 49ers
1996 Packers

These would be the 5 teams that I would rate as having the most dominant single season performances when considering both the regular season and playoffs. If the Patriots destroy the NYG in the Superbowl they could sneak into this list. If anyone else has their own rankings on the most dominant single season performances I would like to see them, especially if it includes some formula or data that supports the rankings.

[2Pac]

No way. No way in hell.

[matskralc]

If anyone else has their own rankings on the most dominant single season performances I would like to see them, especially if it includes some formula or data that supports the rankings.

Here's what I did:

Figured the average points per team per game throughout NFL/AFL history (Super Bowl era). Came up with 20.4 For each season, figured the average points per team per game and divided it by the 20.4 to come up with a sort of "era factor". 2004's era factor was 1.05, meaning points were 5% easier to come by in 2004 than they have been over NFL history.

Took each Super Bowl winner's game-by-game schedule, and adjusted each game's score by the era factor (in 2004, every total was divided by 1.05). From here, the margin of victory/defeat was figured. In 2004 Week 1, the Patriots beat the Colts 27-24, which adjusted to 25.7-22.8. The margin of victory was 2.9 points.

For each game won, the margin of victory was multiplied by the opponent's winning percentage in all other games that season. The 2004 Colts were 13-4 in all games except Week 1, a winning percentage of .765. That 2.9 times .765 comes out to 2.18 "domination points". This rewards teams for beating good teams by a lot of points.

For each game lost, the margin of loss was multiplied by the opponent's losing percentage. The 2004 Patriots lost in Week 8 to the Steelers, 20-34. That adjusted to 19.0-32.3 loss, margin of defeat of 13.3 points. The Steelers were 15-2 in all other games that season, a losing percentage of .128. Multiplied by the -13.3 means -1.56 "domination points" for that game. This punishes teams for losing to bad teams.

The domination points for each team were then added up and divided by the total games that team played in that season. The results follow. I was surprised at who came out on top (The 2007 Patriots and Giants were both included based on their current scores):

Year	Champ	W	L	T	SCORE
1991	WAS	17	2	0	10.259
1985	CHI	18	1	0	9.491
1996	GB	16	3	0	8.835
2007	NE	18	0	0	8.583
1973	MIA	15	2	0	7.600
1977	DAL	15	2	0	7.575
1994	SF	16	3	0	7.372
1989	SF	17	2	0	7.287
1984	SF	18	1	0	7.140
1998	DEN	17	2	0	6.662
1971	DAL	14	3	0	6.611
1992	DAL	16	3	0	6.548
1979	PIT	15	4	0	6.373
1969	KC	14	3	0	6.367
1975	PIT	15	2	0	6.209
1978	PIT	17	2	0	5.940
2004	NE	17	2	0	5.873
2002	TB	15	4	0	5.864
1986	NYG	17	2	0	5.798
1982	WAS	12	1	0	5.603
1966	GB	14	2	0	5.592
1997	DEN	16	4	0	5.550
1999	STL	16	3	0	5.521
1967	GB	12	4	1	5.485
1993	DAL	15	4	0	5.327
1976	OAK	16	1	0	5.062
2000	BAL	16	4	0	5.052
1974	PIT	13	3	1	5.026
1972	MIA	17	0	0	4.966
1995	DAL	15	4	0	4.922
1983	LAD	15	4	0	4.728
2005	PIT	15	5	0	4.499
1968	NYJ	13	3	0	4.257
1990	NYG	16	3	0	4.162
1988	SF	13	6	0	3.838
1981	SF	16	3	0	3.827
1987	WAS	14	4	0	3.808
2003	NE	17	2	0	3.328
1970	BAL	14	2	1	3.161
1980	OAK	15	5	0	3.122
2006	IND	16	4	0	3.120
2001	NE	14	5	0	2.146
2007	NYG	13	6	0	1.128

The 1991 Redskins don't come up often when we discuss domination. However, the Redskins opened the season by destroying the Detroit Lions 45-0. That Lions team went 13-4 the rest of the year. This game's domination score (37.018) is the best by a Super Bowl champion in history. (The 2nd highest is the Packers' 55-7 victory over a 9-4 Browns team in 1967 [30.648]).

The Eagles fell 23-0 and would go 10-5 in their other games. They beat the Bears 20-7, the Bears would go 11-5 in their other games. Atlanta would go 11-6, the Redskins killed them 56-17. Their only losses were by a field goal to an 11-6 Dallas team and by two points to the Eagles. In the playoffs, the Falcons fell again 24-7, as did the Lions 41-10 before 15-3 Buffalo lost 37-24 in the Super Bowl.

The single worst performance was New England's 31-0 loss to 5-10 Buffalo to open the 2004 season (-20.262 points)

The most dominant Super Bowl performance is no surprise: the 49ers' 55-10 pasting of the 13-5 Broncos following the 1989 season (32.212 points). The least dominant Super Bowl was the Giants' 20-19 victory over the 15-3 Bills the next season.

The 2007 Patriots need to win by at least 14 points in order to improve their domination score.

[cincy]

Thanks for posting your domination ratings. Those are very interesting. I think our ratings are somewhat similar and we both agree the undefeated 1972 Dolphins were clearly not a dominant team compared to other top Superbowl champions. I actually had decided to check the schedule differences for all the Superbowl champions. I identified the w/l record for the Superbowl champions' opponents (after exculding games against the Superbowl champion). In most cases the shedules were similar as 30 of the 42 superbowl champions, had opponents with a winning percentage between 47% and 53%. The 1991 Redskins had the 2nd toughest schedule with opponents going 127-113 (52.9%). So I agree the 1991 Redskins should move past the 1989 49ers since the Skins had a much tougher schedule.

[cincy]

I think your ratings are good. It appears your ratings do not count playoff games as more important and my ratings give much more weighting for playoff games so this is likely the main reason for differences in our rankings.

After I adjusted for schedule differences, my top 5 most dominant single seasons went to the following:

1985 Bears
1991 Redskins
1989 49ers
1996 Packers
1984 49ers

We also both seem to agree that the 1991 Redskins don’t seem to be thought of as one of the most dominant teams. I wonder why because when you look at their actual performance that season against a tough schedule they did great. Maybe it is because they didn’t have that elite QB. Maybe it was because the Skins won 2 other championships while the Bears just had that one championship that everyone remembers.

How did you post that table so the columns stayed separated?

[matskralc]

I used the code tag for displaying the table.

I didn't weight playoff games in any special way because playoff games are already, in a sense, weighted: every Super Bowl winner won all their playoff games, and all the teams they beat were good. The average regular season game was worth about 4.2 points. The average playoff game was worth about 11.5.

[Mr Handicapable]

The 1985 Bears was the most dominant team for one year of all-time without a doubt! The Bears 46 Defense was so unique that other teams didn't know how to protect against it! Other players actually physically feared them...i.e. Tony "chuck and duck" Eason in the Super Bowl! Only 4 opposing QBs actually FINISHED the game against them due to being pulled from the game or injured. They beat San Fran (Patriots of the 80s), Rams, Giants, Patriots (twice), Vikings (twice), Washington, and gave Dallas the worst team defeat in TEAM HISTORY 44-0! I still own the Sports Illustrated w/the picture of Danny White's crushed body on the turf and one of his lineman running his hand over White's mouth to see if he was still breathing!
I would put the 1989 49ers ahead of this Patriot team as well! Nobody stopped Jerry Rice in his prime like Moss has been erased these last two games! They obliterated their playoff foes by a total of 126-26 including 55-10 over Denver! You can't discount the 90s Cowboys either with the biggest and most physical O-Line in the NFL! I lived in Texas at the time and watched every game! I've never seen holes as big as Emmitt Smith ran through in my life!! Canyon sized holes where there was no defenders even in the camera shot were common in almost every game!!

[slacker00]

Regarding the '85 Bears versus the '07 Patriots versus the '72 Dolphins: If the Patriots go 19-0, that's it. End of conversation. 19-0 blows the doors off 17-0 and 18-1, bar none.

Realistically, after the Pats go 19-0, they are equal to 42 other teams for the past 42 years. Every team should only really be compared to their own era. That's why we have the Super Bowl every year. It's like arguing who would win in a fight between Superman and Batman. Good grief, am I the only one on this board that has the mentality beyond a 12-year-old? Arguing the '72 Dolphins against the '07 Patriots against the '06 Colts or the '05 Steelers is one level above being a Trekkie, IMHO. No offense, Cincy, I think you're cool, but let's just move on from this.

I hope I'm setting a standard with this post to the rest of radio/tv talk show eternity, not to mention message board activity. I never want to hear about the '72 Dolphins again. They can stick their Champaign you know where, this year after the Super Bowl.

[Sportsgirl]

It is almost impossible to compare teams across era's. The 2007 Patriots would crush the 85 Bears on the field due to advances in biochemistry but that doesn't make them a better team relative to their era. Controlling for era I would put the list as:

1. 1985 Chicago Bears
2. 1975 Pittsburgh Steelers
3. 1973 Miami Dolphins
4. 1972 Miami Dolphins
5. 1999 St. Louis Rams
6. 1996 Green Bay Packers
7. 1991 Washington Redskins
8. 2007 New England Patriots
9. 1984 San Francisco 49ers
10. 2000 Baltimore Ravens
11. 1969 Kansas City Chiefs (I'd put them at 10th but their schedule was AFL based and this is an NFL list. Also, the team they beat might have ranked #1 on this list had they won the Super Bowl. The 1969 Vikings were a tough team to score on).

The Bears and Steelers were obviously dominant teams. However, I haven't done any controls for strength of schedule and those can matter a great deal. I suspect if I controlled for strength of schedule the Patriots would rise in this list and the Dolphins and Rams would fall. That is a project for another day.

Swap No.1 and No. 2 and you've got my vote. Steelers, IMO, were the most dominant team in football - all the four winning squads from the '70s. I am, however, just slightly prejudice

[BadNina]

Swap No.1 and No. 2 and you've got my vote. Steelers, IMO, were the most dominant team in football - all the four winning squads from the '70s. I am, however, just slightly prejudice

I shall disagree with you only because while the Steel Curtain (all things being equal) could go head to head with any of them, I don't think the Steeler's offense would hold up that well against some of the D's.

[RageWizard]

Boy that is a lottttt of reading for this thread. So I didn't do it. The Bears are not more dominate than the Patriots and the Patriots would have mopped up the bears with buddy Ryan's chewing tobacoo.

[maritime]

I think team vs team though the Steelers 78, Bears 85, 49ers late 80's would beat this pats team. I mean who have the Pats actually beat? With the salary cap in place their are very few dominant teams anymore in the NFL. Back in the day there were many teams year in and year out that were dominant and it was much harder to do what the Bears and Dolphins did back then than what the Pats are doing this year. Im not saying that there not a great team bc they are but I would take any of those teams over them.

We all just got dumber by reading this post.

[DrunkenLullaby]

Even though they might still potentially blow NYG out, I would like to recant all previous statements in this thread by myself and concede the argument to Hedgehog and others. Tough to imagine a non-dominant 19-0 (maybe) team with a huge point differential not being the most dominant, but it is true, this team is hanging on for dear life.

You guys win....even if the Pats do.

[slacker00]

Those '72 Dolphins must be popping those corks tonight. Good God, those guys are gonna go to their graves drinking champaign the whole way.