1985 Bears More Dominant Than 2007 Patriots

[cincy]

New England’s excellent regular season got me interested in comparing all the Superbowl champions to evaluate which team had the MOST DOMINANT SEASON. I came up with 7 factors (i.e. methods) to evaluate regular season performance and 4 factors to evaluate playoff performance. Each Superbowl champion was ranked from 1 (Best) to 42 (Worst) in each of these factors based on their actual numerical performance compared with all the Superbowl winners. I averaged the rankings for the 7 regular season factors and then ranked each team’s overall regular season performance. I also averaged the rankings for the 4 playoff factors and then ranked each team’s overall playoff performance.

I realize that this approach provided equal weighting to each of the factors and this could certainly be argued about what factor is the most important factor to consider regarding team performance. I realize that some people may consider won/loss record as the only important factor. But I am trying to identify the team that had the most dominant single season. Thus, I felt it was important to consider factors such as point difference since more dominance is displayed in a 35 point victory than a 1 point victory. I also included factors that compared the Superbowl champion’s regular season performance with the top performance by the next best team that season. So San Francisco’s 14-2 1989 regular season (2nd best team was 12-4) is ranked as a more dominant season than Denver’s 14-2 1998 regular season (Minnesota was 15-1 in 1998). I also included factors that used a statistical approach to rank each team’s performance relative to how other teams performed that same season. So although Pittsburgh had an excellent 12-2 record in 1975, they did this during a season when there were many very strong teams (two other teams were 12-2) and many very weak teams (9 teams won 4 games or less). It is not as statistically significant to achieve a 12-2 record during a season when other teams also accomplish that same record.

For evaluating playoff performance, I chose to include average playoff point dif and % of total points scored by team. The 49ers of 1989 had the top playoff point difference ranking based on an average playoff point difference of +33.3. The % of total points scored factor gives a team more credit for a 21-0 victory than a 49-28 victory which makes sense to me. The 1985 Bears ranked first in the % of total points scored with victories of 21-0, 24-0, 46-10. I also chose to rank the teams based on their closest playoff victory, so a team would be ranked higher if they won all their playoff games easily. I waffled about whether to include average playoff pointspread as a factor for playoff performance but decided to include it since there is clearly a positive correlation between team dominance and pointspread lines. I actually also performed another analysis and excluded the average playoff pointspread factor and the overall results are not much different than these results so I decided to keep it.

At this point I had rankings of the best regular season performances and the best playoff performances by the Superbowl champions. I decided that the regular season performance ranking and the playoff performance ranking would be given equal weighting. So I simply averaged these two rankings and then ranked the teams overall season performance based on the combined rankings. I realize that some people may argue that the regular season has more games and should be weighted higher. However, I feel a playoff game is much more important than a regular season game and is warranted to be considered more significant. We all see how some top teams decide to rest players near the end of the regular season and often lose games that they would not have lost. So I am not confident that a 14-2 season is that much better than a 13-3 season where a team lost a game because they rested players.

I will attempt to past the ranking from my Excel spreadsheet below. Please give me a chance to past the table before replying to this post. Before I do this I need to clarify that I was attempting to see how the 2007 Patriots compared with the other dominant teams so I had to assume the Patriots would win the Superbowl in the below ranking. I also wanted to determine whether the 2007 Patriots season could be considered as the most dominant season of all time so the below rankings for the 2007 Patriots include a 42-7 victory over the Giants in the Superbowl. I clearly do not feel the Patriots will beat the Giants 42-7 but needed to do this to see if the Patriots had a chance to be considered the most dominant.

[5 star bomb]

DAAAAAAAAAAAA BEARS

[HedgeHog]

I agree, but I may be prejudiced (see avatar). Chicago's postseason was certainly more impressive.

[mofome]

big cincy is here!




how many players did that bears teams end to the HOF?

[DrunkenLullaby]

The '85 Bears were, and still are, my favorite NFL team ever.

BUT....they lost to Miami....and looked like shit doing so.

18-0 is 18-0 and 19-0 will be 19-0 and these Pats will be the best and most dominant team ever.

Yes, we all wish we could combine the '85 Bears D with these Pats O to see a team that would win every game 70-3, but that's not happening.

[5 star bomb]

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.

[HedgeHog]

Playoffs are a better measure of a team. Pats haven't impressed thus far, and '85 Bears gave up just 10 points in the postseason (including 2 shutouts).

[Deuce]

Tom Brady

/thread


The Pats beat....

Chargers twice
Indy on the road
Jacksonville
Cowboys on the road.
Giants on the road.

[DrunkenLullaby]

Playoffs are a better measure of a team.

No, going undefeated is.

Also, much as I love the '85 Bears D, this Pats O would go over & through them.

[HedgeHog]

No, going undefeated is.

Also, much as I love the '85 Bears D, this Pats O would go over & through them.

So by that reasoning, '72 Dolphins are the 2nd best team of all time?

PS Pats lucky not to have 2 or 3 losses (Indy, Philly & Balt).

[Poker_Beast]

They indeed are lucky to still be perfect. The had several close calls. Go GIANTS!!!

[cincy]

I had some internet problems and was unable to login to past the tables. I will try agin now.
Regular Season Factors
Champion Team Season Regular Season Win % Regular Season Point Dif Regular Season % of Total Points Scored by Team pf/(pf+pa) Regular Season Win Dif Verse Team With Most Wins (or 2nd Most Wins) Regular Season Pt Dif Verse Team With Best Pt Dif (or 2nd Best Pt Dif) # Std Dev for Team's Regular Season Wins # Std Dev for Team's Regular Season Point Dif
GB 1966 86% 12.3 67.3% 0.5 -2.4 1.7 1.4
GB 1967 68% 8.8 61.4% -3.5 -7.9 0.8 1.0
NYJ 1968 79% 9.9 59.9% -2 -8.5 1.1 1.0
KC 1969 79% 13.0 67.0% -1.5 -4.6 1.2 1.7
BAL 1970 82% 6.2 57.8% -0.5 -7.5 1.6 0.9
DAL 1971 79% 13.1 64.6% 0 0.7 1.5 1.9
MIA 1972 100% 15.3 69.2% 3 3.3 2.2 1.8
MIA 1973 86% 13.8 69.6% 0 -1.2 1.5 1.5
PIT 1974 75% 8.3 61.7% -1.5 -0.8 1.3 1.3
PIT 1975 86% 15.1 69.7% 0 1.0 1.4 1.7
OAK 1976 93% 8.1 59.6% 1.5 -6.5 1.7 0.9
DAL 1977 86% 9.5 61.9% 0 -1.6 1.7 1.5
PIT 1978 88% 10.1 64.6% 2 -0.9 2.2 2.1
PIT 1979 75% 9.6 61.4% 0 -0.7 1.4 2.0
OAK 1980 69% 3.6 54.3% -1 -6.5 1.0 0.6
SF 1981 81% 6.7 58.8% 1 -2.5 1.8 1.1
WAS 1982 89% 6.9 59.7% 0 -0.5 1.8 1.1
LARaid 1983 75% 6.6 56.7% -2 -6.5 1.4 1.2
SF 1984 94% 15.5 67.7% 1 2.1 2.1 2.1
CHI 1985 94% 16.1 69.7% 3 6.8 2.2 2.5
NYG 1986 88% 8.4 61.1% 0 -1.9 1.8 1.4
WAS 1987 73% 6.3 57.1% -2 -7.4 1.3 1.0
SF 1988 63% 4.7 55.7% -2 -6.1 0.7 0.9
SF 1989 88% 11.8 63.6% 2 3.3 2.1 1.9
NYG 1990 81% 7.8 61.4% -1 -2.5 1.5 1.2
WAS 1991 88% 16.3 68.4% 1 6.7 1.7 2.3
DAL 1992 81% 10.4 62.7% -1 -1.8 1.5 1.6
DAL 1993 75% 9.2 62.1% 0 -1.9 1.6 1.6
SF 1994 81% 13.1 63.0% 1 2.7 1.8 2.5
DAL 1995 75% 9.0 59.9% -1 -3.4 1.6 1.7
GB 1996 81% 15.4 68.5% 0 6.1 1.7 2.6
DEN 1997 75% 11.6 62.2% -1 2.7 1.4 2.1
DEN 1998 88% 12.0 61.9% -1 -4.3 1.8 1.7
STL 1999 81% 17.8 68.5% -1 6.6 1.7 2.7
BAL 2000 75% 10.5 66.9% -1 -0.8 1.3 1.4
NE 2001 69% 6.2 57.7% -3 -8.2 0.9 1.0
TB 2002 75% 9.4 63.8% 0 -1.5 1.5 1.7
NE 2003 88% 6.9 59.4% 1 -2.6 2.0 1.1
NE 2004 88% 11.1 62.7% -1 0.4 1.9 1.9
PIT 2005 69% 8.2 60.1% -3 -3.8 0.9 1.2
IND 2006 75% 4.2 54.3% -1 -7.6 1.4 0.7
NE 2007 100% 19.7 68.3% 3 7.9 2.4 2.7

[cincy]

How can I post this table so it looks like it does in Excel with column headers and lines separating the columns?

[mofome]

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.

83, 87, and 91 skins are probably the best teams ever.

[Wrigley]

85 bears best team ever, but the Pats will take that title over if they win the SB.

Highest scoring team ever in NFL history, Brady and Moss setting all time records for TD.

[DrunkenLullaby]

So by that reasoning, '72 Dolphins are the 2nd best team of all time?

PS Pats lucky not to have 2 or 3 losses (Indy, Philly & Balt).

Yes, but they have zero. '85 Bears had 1. End of story.

[purecarnagge]

85 bears had the best front 7 in the game ever. They didn't need to blitz to get pressure. I honestly think this pats team is soft on D. They allow alot of points and there defense can't impose its will on anyone...

There a veteran version of the colts. Get a good offense score points and then hope your defense doesn't give up more points than you score...

[cincy]

I will go ahead and post the tables even though they are not very readable with the column separaters removed.

Regular Season Factors Rankings (Sorted by Most Dominant Regular Season)

1. Champion Team
2. Season
3. Regular Season Win % Ranking (1=Best)
4. Regular Season Point Dif Ranking (1=Best)
5. Regular Season % of Total Points Scored by Team Ranking (1=Best) pf/(pf+pa)
6. Regular Season Win Dif Verse Team With Most Wins (or 2nd Most Wins) Ranking (1=Best)
7. Regular Season Pt Dif Verse Team With Best Pt Dif (or 2nd Best Pt Dif) Ranking (1=Best)
8. # Std Dev for Team's Regular Season Wins Ranking (1=Best)
9. # Std Dev for Team's Regular Season Point Dif Ranking (1=Best)
10. Regular Season 7 Factor Combined Ranking (Low=Best)
11. My Most Dominant Regular Season Ranking (1=Best)

NE 2007 1 1 8 2 1 1 1 2.1 1
CHI 1985 3.5 4 1 2 2 2 4 2.6 2
MIA 1972 2 7 4 2 6.5 3 14 5.5 3
SF 1984 3.5 5 9 9 10 5 7 6.9 4
WAS 1991 10 3 7 9 3 15 6 7.6 5
SF 1989 10 15 16 4.5 6.5 6 12 10.0 6
GB 1996 21.5 6 6 17.5 5 17 3 10.9 7
PIT 1978 10 20 14 4.5 18 4 9 11.4 8
STL 1999 21.5 2 5 28.5 4 19 2 11.7 9
SF 1994 21.5 10.5 17 9 8.5 12 5 11.9 10
PIT 1975 15.5 8 2 17.5 11 30 17 14.4 11
NE 2004 10 17 19 28.5 13 8 11 15.2 12
MIA 1973 15.5 9 3 17.5 19 23 22 15.6 13
GB 1966 15.5 13 10 12 25 14 25 16.4 14
DAL 1971 26 10.5 13 17.5 12 25 13 16.7 15
DEN 1998 10 14 23 28.5 31 13 16 19.4 16
DAL 1977 15.5 23 22 17.5 21 18 23 20.0 17
WAS 1982 6 33.5 32 17.5 14 9 31 20.4 18
NYG 1986 10 28 28 17.5 23.5 11 26 20.6 19
DEN 1997 32 16 20 28.5 8.5 32 8 20.7 20
PIT 1979 32 22 26 17.5 15 28 10 21.5 21
TB 2002 32 24 15 17.5 20 26 19 21.9 22
NE 2003 10 33.5 34 9 28 7 33 22.1 23
DAL 1992 21.5 19 18 28.5 22 27 20 22.3 24
DAL 1993 32 25 21 17.5 23.5 22 21 23.1 25
BAL 2000 32 18 12 28.5 16.5 34 24 23.6 26
OAK 1976 5 31 33 6 35 16 39 23.6 27
KC 1969 26 12 11 34.5 32 36 15 23.8 28
SF 1981 21.5 35 35 9 26.5 10 32 24.1 29
DAL 1995 32 26 31 28.5 29 20 18 26.4 30
NYG 1990 21.5 32 27 28.5 26.5 24 30 27.1 31
PIT 1974 32 29 24 34.5 16.5 35 27 28.3 32
BAL 1970 18 38.5 36 23 38 21 40 30.6 33
NYJ 1968 26 21 30 37.5 42 37 37 32.9 34
PIT 2005 39 30 29 40.5 30 40 28 33.8 35
LARaid 1983 32 36 39 37.5 35 29 29 33.9 36
GB 1967 41 27 25 42 40 41 35 35.9 37
WAS 1987 37 37 38 37.5 37 33 34 36.2 38
IND 2006 32 41 42 28.5 39 31 41 36.4 39
OAK 1980 39 42 41 28.5 35 38 42 37.9 40
NE 2001 39 38.5 37 40.5 41 39 36 38.7 41
SF 1988 42 40 40 37.5 33 42 38 38.9 42

[cincy]

Playoff Factors

1. Champion Team
2. Season
3. Average Playoff Point Dif
4. Playoffs % of Total Points Scored by Team pf/(pf+pa)
5. Closest Playoff Win
6. Average Playoff Pointspread

GB 1966 16.0 65.1% 7 -10.3
GB 1967 14.7 68.3% 4 -7.0
NYJ 1968 6.5 58.9% 4 7.5
KC 1969 11.0 72.6% 7 6.2
BAL 1970 10.0 66.7% 3 -0.7
DAL 1971 13.3 76.3% 8 -4.3
MIA 1972 5.7 59.1% 4 -5.0
MIA 1973 17.3 72.0% 17 -7.3
PIT 1974 13.0 68.6% 10 -1.3
PIT 1975 9.3 63.7% 4 -8.0
OAK 1976 12.7 65.6% 3 -1.8
DAL 1977 21.3 79.1% 17 -8.5
PIT 1978 18.7 68.9% 4 -5.8
PIT 1979 15.3 66.7% 12 -9.8
OAK 1980 11.5 64.6% 2 2.5
SF 1981 6.7 56.1% 1 -1.3
WAS 1982 15.5 69.6% 10 -1.5
LARaid 1983 24.3 76.3% 16 -3.8
SF 1984 18.7 75.9% 11 -8.0
CHI 1985 27.0 90.1% 21 -9.7
NYG 1986 27.3 82.0% 17 -6.3
WAS 1987 14.3 68.4% 4 1.7
SF 1988 18.0 74.5% 4 -3.5
SF 1989 33.3 82.9% 27 -8.7
NYG 1990 10.3 65.3% 1 -2.0
WAS 1991 20.3 71.3% 13 -10.7
DAL 1992 23.0 71.2% 10 -3.0
DAL 1993 14.7 65.1% 10 -9.2
SF 1994 20.7 65.5% 10 -14.3
DAL 1995 13.3 63.3% 10 -11.8
GB 1996 17.3 67.6% 14 -10.8
DEN 1997 9.8 60.7% 3 0.4
DEN 1998 21.0 74.8% 13 -9.8
STL 1999 8.0 58.5% 5 -9.7
BAL 2000 18.0 80.5% 13 1.6
NE 2001 4.3 56.1% 3 7.0
TB 2002 23.0 74.1% 17 0.7
NE 2003 5.3 56.2% 3 -5.5
NE 2004 11.3 62.5% 3 -3.3
PIT 2005 11.3 63.3% 3 1.5
IND 2006 10.0 61.8% 4 -3.3
NE 2007 18.3 70.7% 9 -13.3

NE 2007 Results assume 42-7 Superbowl Victory

[cincy]

Playoff Factors Rankings (Sorted by Most Dominant Playoff Performance)

1. Champion Team
2. Season
3. Average Playoff Point Dif Ranking (1=Best)
4. Playoffs % of Total Points Scored by Team Ranking (1=Best) pf/(pf+pa)
5. Closest Playoff Win Ranking (1=Best)
6. Average Playoff Pointspread Ranking (1=Best)
7. Playoffs 4 Factor Combined Ranking (Low=Best)
8. My Most Dominant Playoff Performance Ranking (1=Best)

CHI 1985 3 1 2 9.5 3.9 1
SF 1989 1 2 1 12 4.0 2
DAL 1977 7 5 4.5 13 7.4 3
NYG 1986 2 3 4.5 18 6.9 4
DEN 1998 8 9 10 7.5 8.6 5
WAS 1991 10 14 10 5 9.8 6
MIA 1973 16.5 13 4.5 16 12.5 7
LARaid 1983 4 7 7 23 10.3 8
SF 1984 11.5 8 13 14.5 11.8 9
GB 1996 16.5 22 8 4 12.6 10
NE 2007 13 16 20 2 12.8 11
SF 1994 9 26 16.5 1 13.1 12
TB 2002 5.5 11 4.5 35 14.0 13
BAL 2000 14.5 4 10 37 16.4 14
PIT 1979 20 23.5 12 7.5 15.8 15
DAL 1992 5.5 15 16.5 27 16.0 16
DAL 1971 24.5 6 21 22 18.4 17
PIT 1978 11.5 18 28.5 19 19.3 18
WAS 1982 19 17 16.5 30 20.6 19
DAL 1993 21.5 29 16.5 11 19.5 20
DAL 1995 24.5 32 16.5 3 19.0 21
SF 1988 14.5 10 28.5 24 19.3 22
GB 1966 18 28 22.5 6 18.6 23
GB 1967 21.5 21 28.5 17 22.0 24
PIT 1974 26 19 16.5 31.5 23.3 25
KC 1969 31 12 22.5 40 26.4 26
STL 1999 37 39 24 9.5 27.4 27
WAS 1987 23 20 28.5 38 27.4 28
PIT 1975 36 31 28.5 14.5 27.5 29
BAL 1970 33.5 23.5 36 33 31.5 30
OAK 1976 27 25 36 29 29.3 31
IND 2006 33.5 35 28.5 26 30.8 32
MIA 1972 40 37 28.5 21 31.6 33
NE 2004 29 34 36 25 31.0 34
OAK 1980 28 30 40 39 34.3 35
PIT 2005 30 33 36 36 33.8 36
NE 2003 41 40 36 20 34.3 37
NYG 1990 32 27 41.5 28 32.1 38
DEN 1997 35 36 36 34 35.3 39
SF 1981 38 41 41.5 31.5 38.0 40
NYJ 1968 39 38 28.5 42 36.9 41
NE 2001 42 42 36 41 40.3 42

NE 2007 Results assume 42-7 Superbowl Victory

[cincy]

Combined Best Regular Season & Playoff Rankings (Overall Dominance Ranking)

1. Champion Team
2. QB
3. Superbowl #
4. Season
5. My Most Dominant Regular Season Ranking (1=Best)
6. My Most Dominant Playoff Performance Ranking (1=Best)
7. Average of My Most Dominant Regular Season Ranking & My Most Dominant Playoff Ranking (Low=Best)
8. My Most Dominant Season Ranking (1=Best)

CHI McMahon 20 1985 2 1 1.5 1
SF Montana 24 1989 6 2 4 2
WAS Rypien 26 1991 5 6 5.5 3
SF Montana 19 1984 4 9 6.5 5
GB Favre 31 1996 7 10 8.5 6
MIA Griese 8 1973 13 7 10 7
DAL Staubach 12 1977 17 3 10 8
NE Brady 42 2007 1 11 6 4 to 12
DEN Elway 33 1998 16 5 10.5 9
SF Young 29 1994 10 12 11 10
NYG Simms 21 1986 19 4 11.5 11
PIT Bradshaw 13 1978 8 18 13 12
DAL Staubach 6 1971 15 17 16 13
TB Johnson 37 2002 22 13 17.5 14
MIA Griese 7 1972 3 33 18 15
STL Warner 34 1999 9 27 18 16
PIT Bradshaw 14 1979 21 15 18 17
GB Starr 1 1966 14 23 18.5 18
WAS Theismann 17 1982 18 19 18.5 19
PIT Bradshaw 10 1975 11 29 20 20
DAL Aikman 27 1992 24 16 20 21
BAL Dilfer 35 2000 26 14 20 22
LARaid Plunkett 18 1983 36 8 22 23
DAL Aikman 28 1993 25 20 22.5 24
NE Brady 39 2004 12 34 23 25
DAL Aikman 30 1995 30 21 25.5 26
KC Dawson 4 1969 28 26 27 27
PIT Bradshaw 9 1974 32 25 28.5 28
OAK Stabler 11 1976 27 31 29 29
DEN Elway 32 1997 20 39 29.5 30
NE Brady 38 2003 23 37 30 31
GB Starr 2 1967 37 24 30.5 32
BAL Morrall/Unitas 5 1970 33 30 31.5 33
SF Montana 23 1988 42 22 32 34
WAS Williams 22 1987 38 28 33 35
SF Montana 16 1981 29 40 34.5 36
NYG Hostetler 25 1990 31 38 34.5 37
PIT Roethlisberger 40 2005 35 36 35.5 38
IND Manning 41 2006 39 32 35.5 39
NYJ Namath 3 1968 34 41 37.5 40
OAK Plunkett 15 1980 40 35 37.5 41
NE Brady 36 2001 41 42 41.5 42

NE 2007 Results assume 42-7 Superbowl Victory

[cincy]

I will attempt to attach the spreadsheet now.

[brock]

85 Bears best evr has of today could change soon

[HedgeHog]

Bears' horrible loss to Miami in '85 actually helped them re-focus. It made them a more determined team, especially in the playoffs. New England is playing with tremendous pressure and it has shown the past few months. They just don't look like the dominating force they were in the first half of the year.

No real way to decide the best team as they can never play one another, but it's fun to vote for our choice. Reminds me of how we decide our college football champion every year!

[McRich]

I will base my decision on what I have seen on television all these years.

The '85 Bears are the best team that I have ever seen. I have been watching NFL football since Super Bowl III. They had a complete team. So what, they lost one game. This does not mean they are not the best team ever. There was absolutely no rational football fan that thought the Bears would lose in the Super Bowl. Forget the spread, that has to do with gambling, not with who people think a team will win or lose.

If you look at this year, how many of you think the Giants have a chance to win the Super Bowl? I think they have a chance.

When the 1985 Bears played in the Super Bowl, very few people thought the Patriots had a chance.

[Wheell]

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.

[DrunkenLullaby]

Although I have not done the legwork to prove this, I'm quite sure that not only are the Pats 18-0, but they have the largest average point differential over their opponents.

I fail to see how a team that loses no games and outscores their opponents by an unprecedented margin can be considered "less dominant" than some other team.

And, of course, Wheell's point about putting athletes from different eras on the same field with each other is dead-on. As great as that Bears D line was IN THEIR ERA, they would get pushed all over the field by NE's offensive line. Athletes get faster and stronger. It is likely the case that if you put this Pats team on the same field as some .500 team 10 years in the future, they would struggle mightily.

[cincy]

Analysis from the Spreadsheet:
• The 1985 Bears had the most dominant single season. They followed a dominant 15-1 regular season with 3 blowout victories in the playoffs. I evaluated the Bears regular season as 2nd to the 2007 Patriots. I realize some could argue the 1972 Dolphins were undefeated but the Bears did win more regular season games than the 14-0 Dolphins and the Bears had a better average point difference even including the Bears one loss. I evaluated the 1985 Bears playoff performance as #1 although I admit the 1989 San Francisco performance looks just as strong but these two teams clearly had the most dominant playoff performances. Even if the Bears regular season was ranked #3 and their playoff performance ranked #2, they would still top the charts.
• There were only 5 teams that achieved top 10 performances in both the regular season and the post season. This includes the following in ranking order: 1985 Bears, 1989 49ers, 1991 Redskins, 1984 49ers, 1996 Packers. The only team listed here that surprised me was the 1991 Redskins. I had forgotten how dominant they were but now have a lot of respect for the 1991 Redskins.
• The good news for the 2007 Patriots is their regular season performance was the most dominant. They won more games than any team and had the best regular season point differential. If the Patriots go on to win the Superbowl they can claim superiority over the 1972 Dolphins based on a more dominant regular season and post-season than the 1972 Dolphins. However, the playoff performance so far by the 2007 Patriots ranks below average compared with other Superbowl champions. The two playoff victories by 11 points and 9 points compares poorly with other Superbowl winners who have won these games by an average of 17 points and 13 points. If the Patriots win the Superbowl by the 12 point line they would end with an average playoff performance compared with other Superbowl winners and their 2007 season would rank as approximately the 9th most dominant overall. If they win the Superbowl by 35 points they could move up to the 4th spot. If they win a very close game they could drop to 12th place. And if the NYG win, then the 2007 Patriots drop out completely.
• The undefeated 1972 Dolphins only rank as the 15th most dominant single season performance. Why? The 1972 Dolphins had a very week playoff performance compared with other Superbowl champions. The 1972 Dolphins only won their playoff games by 6 points, 4 points and 7 points. The undefeated 1972 Dolphins were not even a favorite over the 11-3 Redskins (game was a PK) in the Superbowl.
• I was surprised that none of the Pittsburgh teams cracked the top 10 most dominant seasons. Pittsburgh had some very strong seasons but Pittsburgh’s playoff performances were clearly not as dominant as some other Superbowl champions.
• Please understand I am not claiming these ranking are the most accurate rankings possible. I would probably use a weighted average approach rather than the simple average used here but I wanted to keep this simple. I also realize that there are likely some additional factors that could be used to rank the teams and would like to hear about any other factors that I could consider to rank the teams. These are also not my personal subjective rankings. These table are based on the actual team performance results (i.e. wins, point differentials, etc). I just applied the math to the actual team performance numbers. I do think the tables provide an interesting comparison about how each Superbowl champion compared with other Superbowl champions.
• I did not intend these rankings to define the Greatest Team of all time. These rankings attempt to define the team that had the most dominant single season. I never really liked the term greatest team or best team because it is too subjective. For example, does the greatest team need to have multiple championships? If so, how many championships in how many years? And what does greatest team mean? Does this mean the most dominant team over multiple seasons, the team with the most talented players or is this the team that plays best together as a unit and achieves performance that exceeds the individual talent levels.
• If we look at the bottom of the chart we see the 2001 Patriots and the 1980 Raiders as the least dominant Superbowl champions. Some people may look at this as a knock on these teams since they weren’t that dominant. I actually think these teams deserve a lot of praise. I grew up near Cincinnati and to me, a winner is defined by guys like Pete Rose and Tim Krumrie (Bengals nose tackle in 1980s). These guys gave all out hustle and were not that talented but worked harder and played harder and got the most out of their ability. The 2001 Patriots may have been the greatest team in the sense that they worked together as a team and accomplished the championship despite not being as talented as other teams.

[slacker00]

Since it hasn't been mentioned yet, I gotta mention the 1992 Dallas Cowboys. Mainly because they were such an incredible stockpile of football talent and depth. I'd like to see this team match up against any other team in history.

[slacker00]

Tim Krumrie (Bengals nose tackle in 1980s).

I graduated from the same High School as Tim Krumrie, 15 years later. He came to speak at our school a couple times while he was playing in the NFL. Everyone felt pretty bad about him breaking his leg in the Super Bowl. I still think the Bengals woulda won that game if that didn't happen.

[cincy]

I recall when the Bengals drafted center Dave Remington with their round 1 pick in 1983. I went to many of the Bengals mini-camp practice sessions before the preseason games that year. I told my Dad that Remington was a terrible pick because this 10th round rookie nose tackle keep kicking Remington's ass during the practice sessions. It was actually Krumrie being that good more than Remington being that bad.

[matskralc]

Using unadjusted point totals/differentials is going to unfairly reward teams that played in higher-offense eras.

[cincy]

Matskralc, The ratings attempt to account for that by including a % of total points scored by team factor. So regardless of whether the team played in a low scoring era or a high scoring era it calculates the % of total points scored by the team.

[matskralc]

For that one factor, yeah. But it looks like at least three of them just use basic points differentials, and it would seem that it's easier to have a higher one playing in a league with more offense.

What I'd do, if I had the time (which I don't at the moment, but who knows what the future might bring???), is adjust each team's points for/against to a common baseline. It would also be important to make a strength of schedule adjustment (the '07 Patriots had a MUCH tougher schedule than the '72 Dolphins). Perhaps something like "dominant points = adjusted margin of victory times opponent's winning percentage in all other games". Then add up all those points. (For losses, you'd multiply adjusted margin of loss by (1 minus opponents win%) to punish teams for losing to bad teams). That would reward teams that played well against good teams.

What you did was a good start, don't get me wrong. That's easy to see by where the '72 Dolphins placed, clearly you're making some good adjustments. But there's always room for improvement!

[McBa1n]

I watched the 85' superbowl on the NFL Network the other day. I always have said that Bears team was the best I'd ever seen while NE is chasing history.

I have to change my opinion. It would be an all-time game and Brady has the tools to beat that 46 Defense. The game was different then, however, I revise to say that NE is the best team I've ever seen... But not by much.