Comparing Championship Titles Across Sports

[BadBoyBenny]

[ QUOTE ]

The Pats run could have easily been the Eagles run (if McNabb stayed healthy) or the Colts run. Especially when you consider there first SB was a complete luckbox.

[/ QUOTE ]

You could say the same thing about most of the great teams. If a few games swung the other way, then it could have been the Redskins or the Giants who won 4 Superbowls from the mid 80's -> the mid 90's or it could have been Dallas or Oakland over the 70's Steelers.

None of them were much more dominant than the modern day Pats


Edit: Also I guess Buffalo was a few games from being the '90's Cowboys but those games were such blowouts I don't know if they count.

[MEbenhoe]

Part of what makes the Patriots run so unimpressive to me is that if you put together a list ranking the super bowl champions of the last 20 years as overall teams, none of the Patriots championship teams make the top 10.

The Patriots happened to put together a string of 3 out of 4 championships with a little luck and the NFL being in a down period in terms of top quality overall teams.

[Kneel B4 Zod]

[ QUOTE ]
Part of what makes the Patriots run so unimpressive to me is that if you put together a list ranking the super bowl champions of the last 20 years as overall teams, none of the Patriots championship teams make the top 10.

[/ QUOTE ]

thats the 1st time Ive ever heard anybody say that. in fact Assani did this ranking last year, ranked them #4, and in the whole thread 1 person had a problem with it.
link

[ QUOTE ]
The Patriots happened to put together a string of 3 out of 4 championships with a little luck

[/ QUOTE ]

I addressed the luck factor above. they had good luck in 2001, and terrible injury luck in both 2003 and 2004. it balances out.

I mean, the 2003/4 team set the NFL record for wins in a row, with 18. They were the best team in the league, easily.

[ QUOTE ]
being in a down period in terms of top quality overall teams.

[/ QUOTE ]

revisionist history. The Colts teams they beat in 2003 and 2004 were both better than the Colts team that won last year. those were scary teams that were blowing people out. The Eagles team they beat in the SB was also a great team. The Steelers went 15-1 in 2004 and were underdogs, at home to the Pats in the 2004 playoffs.

[MEbenhoe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Part of what makes the Patriots run so unimpressive to me is that if you put together a list ranking the super bowl champions of the last 20 years as overall teams, none of the Patriots championship teams make the top 10.

[/ QUOTE ]

thats the 1st time Ive ever heard anybody say that. in fact Assani did this ranking last year, ranked them #4, and in the whole thread 1 person had a problem with it.
link



[/ QUOTE ]

Teams I'd rank above the 04 Pats of the past 20 champs:

1989 49ers
1991 Redskins
1992 Cowboys
1993 Cowboys
1994 49ers
1995 Cowboys
1996 Packers
1997 Broncos
1998 Broncos
1999 Rams

2004 Pats come in at #11 then. 03 Pats right behind them. Then you've got the 87 Redskins, 88 49ers, 90 Giants, 00 Ravens, and 02 Bucs all above the 01 Pats who are about equal with the 05 Steelers.

So part of my problem is that to me the 97-98 Broncos repeat was more impressive than the 03-04 Pats repeat, and the 92-95 3 out of 4 Cowboys championships was more impressive than the 01-04 3 out of 4 Pats.

[Kneel B4 Zod]

[ QUOTE ]
So part of my problem is that to me the 97-98 Broncos repeat was more impressive than the 03-04 Pats repeat,

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure why this is. Denver went 12-4 & 14-2 in these years, New England 14-2 & 14-2. They both beat great NFC teams in the SB (GB 97 and Philly 04 had very similar years) and decent NFC teams in the SB. anyways it doesn't matter so much, b/c the Pats were able to put together 3/4 while the Broncos were not. In addition, they Broncos SB years were sandwiched in between a whole bunch of mediocre years, while the Pats came within 1 1st down of being a 10 pt favorite in a 4th SB, and again this year are poised for a great year. the 2 "runs" really don't compare.

The Cowboys run and the Pats runs were similar, but again you need to take era into consideration. The Cowboys made their run before true free agency, when it was much easier to keep a team together. thats a lot of what makes the Pats run amazing - they have built a dynasty playing in the context of rules that makes it extremely difficult to do so.

[BadBoyBenny]

I don't think the '95 Cowboys were in the same league as the '92 and '93 Cowboys. I would put NE '04 above them.

[Equal]

Can we pleas get this thread back on topic? I'm sure no matter how you skew the stats, that the Yankees 28 titles and the Canadiens 24 titles are much more impressive than the Patriots recent run or the Cowboys in the 90's - no matter how you view the stats. They are irrelevant to the question.

[Kneel B4 Zod]

[ QUOTE ]
Can we pleas get this thread back on topic? I'm sure no matter how you skew the stats, that the Yankees 28 titles and the Canadiens 24 titles are much more impressive than the Patriots recent run or the Cowboys in the 90's - no matter how you view the stats. They are irrelevant to the question.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought that was the question

[Jeff W]

[ QUOTE ]
Saying the Packers have 12 titles seems misleading to me, since the vast majority are pre NFL.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't know what you mean by this. All 12 are NFL championships.

[Jack of Arcades]

He obviously means pre-merger. They have only post-merger championship and 3 SB titles.