Ranking the Super Bowl Teams: or how the 1991 Redskins get no love

There is a prevalent gimmick used today by sports writers, sports TV shows, sports website, and by yours truly: Ranking. Ranking the NFL teams, the best NBA dunks of all time, the best outfield catch in a World Series, the best defenseman of the 80s who never played in a Stanley Cup finals... you get the idea.

Rankings will always have a good amount (some more than others) of personal opinion in them, but I feel it's important to establish some empirical and measurable aspect to them. For instance, in my state quarter review, I established that in every instance "cutting off" the bottom of the design is bad ( i.e. negative points). Of course there are levels of bad, but you get the point.

I bring this up because ESPN has made a ranking of the Super Bowl teams (winners and losers) from Super Bowl I to Super Bowl XL, and boy do they lack this measurable aspect. Oh, they claim they had a methodology but I don't think they really used it. They seemed to throw the "team" aspect of the ranking out, in favor of big names (I'll elaborate on this later... just look for the names Lawrence Taylor and Mark Rypien.)

Anyways, here is my biggest gripe about this ranking: The 1991 Washington Redskins are ranked #10. Granted, they admit there is reason for Redskins fans to be upset AND they admit the 91 Skins might the best team of all time... but I'm still complaining! First thing, they already called the 91 Skins the 4th best team of all time. Second, they give a pair of terrible excuses:

Excuse #1: they say their running game wasn't all that good because their average yards per carry was ranked 18th (never mind that #9 Patriots were also ranked 18th in yards per carry). That reasoning is a load of crap considering the #1 (89 49ers) and #4 (92 Cowboys) teams (both teams with good running offenses) were both ranked 9th in yards per carry (The 49ers were tied with seven teams, making them tied for spots number 9 through 16). A main reason for a low yards per carry is that when you're a great team you tend to build a big lead and then you run the ball A LOT in the second half to run out the time. Obviously the opposing team is aware of this and they play to stop the run. Besides, comparing a stat like that is useless because what does it matter that your yards per carry are high if you're going to lose the game. (As an example: the team with the highest yards per carry that year was the San Diego Chargers, who went 4-12!)

Excuse #2: I'll just quote the ridiculous excuse: "And while Mark Rypien didn't have exactly a fluke season, he certainly had a career year. And we're having a little trouble getting past ranking a team with Rypien higher than 10th." The problem with that is that, save for 1989 and maybe 1992, it was a fluke season. Rypien became Joe Montana for 2 or 3 years. In fact, he had a better season than Montana's #1 ranked season, Jim McMahon's #2, Terry Bradshaw's #3, Troy Aikman's #4, Bob Griese's #7, and Phil Simms' #8. Remember, according to their methodology you line up the teams and players as they were that year... so pretty please, with sugar on top, stop being enamored with a name (or lack of a "name") and realize that for 2 seasons Mark Rypien was, if not the best quarterback in the league, among the Top 3 quarterbacks in the league. Aside from all that, one man should not make or break a team's ranking.

Now allow me to explain why they should rank higher than most of the teams ranked above them. First, we'll go ahead and give the 78 Steelers and the 72 Dolphins a pass since I never saw them play.

Second, we'll just start with the "easy pickins", that is to say the teams they were obviously better than:

9 - 2004 Patriots. Does this even need to be discussed? The Patriots barely beat the Eagles in the Super Bowl, beat the horribly overrated Steelers in the AFC championship, and beat a team who they absolutely OWNED until this year. Thats not exactly as impressive as they make it out to be. ESPN also dropped this nugget: "they were 9-1 against .500 or better teams." Excuse me, but didn't they go 14-2? Doesn't that mean they lost a game to a team with a losing record?! Exactly how is that impressive? A good team should NEVER lose to a bad team because thats the definition of being good! And that one loss to a .500 or better team? It was by two touchdowns! I have to move on because this is just too easy and it could take all day.

8 - 1986 Giants. This choice is equally baffling. And ESPN's explanation? "Lawrence Taylor." No doubt a great player, but ESPECIALLY in the NFL, a player does not make a team. LT didn't even "make" the defense, but even if you want to claim that he did, how do you explain ranking them higher when the Giants defense allowed 12 more points over the season (against an easier schedule!) than the 91 Skins. This team also lost to a team with a losing record. And do we even need to point out how crummy the offense (ranked 8th in points and 10th in yards during the season) was? Let's just leave it at this: the Giants scored 371 points all season, which puts them last in, not only the Top 10 but, the Top 20, behind even the 72 Dolphins... who played in only 14 games! (The Giants played 16)

Next are the "not as easy, but definitely there for the pickins" teams. In other words, teams that they were better than but you could convince me that the gap wasn't as big:

6 - 1996 Packers. This conversation should begin and end here: with practically identical strengths of schedule (.504 vs .508) the Skins went 14-2 and the Packers went 13-3. If thats not enough how bout these apples: In those 2 loses the Redskins lost by a total of 5 points, the Packers 3 loses were by a total of 15 points... an AVERAGE of 5 points a loss. The Skins scored more points than the Packers (485 vs. 456) AND had a better point differential (+261 vs. +256). In the playoffs the Redskins scored more points (102 vs.100) AND allowed less points (41 vs. 48) so, obviously, they had a better point differential (+61 vs. +52) there. Finally the Redskins win the coaches battle (Joe Gibbs vs. Mike Holmgren) hands down, and barely lose the QB battle (91 Rypien vs. 96 Brett Favre) mostly because Favre threw for so many TDs because their running game wasn't all that good.

5 - 1984 49ers. I think this team is ranked almost right, except that I would have ranked them above the 92 Cowboys (we'll talk about them soon enough). First we'll address the only thing that I think could warrant ranking the 84 49ers higher than the 91 Skins: their records, the Niners went 15-1 and the Skins went 14-2. But consider the following: First, the Skins strength of schedule was harder than the 49ers (.504 vs .457). To go along with that, the Skins played in the strong NFC East (where in 1991, three teams had double digit wins and only the Phoenix Cardinals had a losing record) and the 49ers play in the perennially weak NFC West (where half the teams had losing records in 1984). Second, both of the the Skin's losses were close games to division rivals AND the last loss was in the final game of the season (when you're apt to rest your best players to not risk injury for the playoffs), on the road against a division rival who went 10-6 and barely missed the playoffs. Oh and it was on a last second field goal! Had the Redskins played an easier schedule (or just in the NFC West) I'm certain they would have gone at least 14-2. So if you null out the difference in records, you have to measure them statistically, and these teams are either equal or the Skins are better there.

4 - 1992 Cowboys. The discrepancy between this team being ranked #4 and the 91 Skins being ranked #10 is probably the biggest travesty in this ranking. Why? Because, for all intents and purposes, these teams played each other! Not surprisingly these teams split their series in 1991 and then again in 1992. So what do you do when teams are equal head-to-head? You go to a tiebreaker, which means comparing statistics and comparing how the teams did against other teams. In both cases the 91 Skins come out on top. The Skins had a better record (14-2 vs. 13-3), and a much harder strength of schedule (.504 vs. .426). The Redskins also DIDN'T lose to a 6-10 team at home in the middle of season, like the Cowboys did. Statistically they were pretty even on defense, the Skins allowed more yards but the Cowboys allowed more points. On offense, though, the Skins were without a doubt better. The Skins scored more points (485 vs. 409), had more yards (5820 vs. 5718), scored more TD (rushing, 21 vs 20; AND passing, 30 vs. 23), and threw less interceptions (11 vs. 15). Sure the Cowboys had the "Triplets", but obviously the Redskins "no name Quadruplets" (of Rypien, Earnest Byner, Art Monk and Gary Clark) were better (sure the "Triplets" sustained their greatness, but, once again, this isn't a comparison of who was better over their careers but at that particular point in time).

The final two teams, the 1989 49ers and the 1985 Bears, are tough to compare against the 91 Skins and so it's hard to conclusively determine who was better.

2 - 1985 Bears. It is always tough to compare any team to the 85 Bears because this team has to be the most hyped team in Super Bowl history. Not that they didn't deserve it but every other team in the top 10 deserved that kind of hype and (except for the 72 Dolphins and 78 Steelers) I'm sure none of them received it. So any team being compared to the 85 Bears starts at a disadvantage (As proof: lots of people seem to think that team had the best defense ever, ignoring that the 72 Dolphins, 78 Steelers, and 00 Ravens, all of whom had better defenses, by points allowed). When you boil it all down these guys were mirror images: the Redskins almost had the best offense ever and the Bears almost had the best defense ever. On the other sides, the Redskins had an excellent defense and the Bears had an excellent offense. To an unbiased observer who doesn't fall for the hype, it's truly a tough call.

1 - 1989 49ers. The 89 49ers and the 91 Redskins were only 2 years apart, so you might want to consider the head-to-head matchup between the two teams in 1990. The 49ers beat the Redskins in the playoffs in San Francisco that year, but that just isn't a good comparison. The 49ers were still at their peak (just barely losing to the Giants the following week in the NFC championship) but the Skins were definitely not the 91 Skins, with Rypien hurt for half the season and Gerald Riggs splitting time with Earnest Byner. Otherwise, these teams are were very similar, with the same record, 14-2, (although the Skins had a tougher schedule) and the same margin of losing: both by a total of 5 points. Statistically, you really can't beat the 49ers offense (although the 91 Skins come close), but the 91 Skins had a better defense. So pretty much the Redskins had the more "well rounded" team.

So that's my argument... even if you put the 72 Dolphins, 78 Steelers, 85 Bears and the 89 49ers ahead of the 91 Skins, that puts them at least in the Top 5. And ever since then there hasn't been a team as good as the 1991 Redskins... and with free agency and the salary cap, there just may never be such a great team.