2011 Giants - 51st-best
2012 Ravens - 50th-best
2007 Giants - 49th-best
Not sure I agree with that. Then again, a bit silly to rank Super Bowl winners over different eras. While there might be some all-time greats, teams likely aren't apples to apples by comparison.
1990 Giants - 29th-best
1986 Giants - 17th-best (um, OK)
For what it's worth ...
Link - (
New Window )
The 1990 Giants also defeated the sure-bet "three-peat" 49ers and then the offensive juggernaut Bills.
The 2007 Giants lost two game from that Redskins Sunday Night loss until Plaxico shot himself the following year. One of those was to the Pats. I could argue that was a top 10 team by the time it played in the Super Bowl (it wasn't for most of the season).
The 1990 Giants also beat every team it played. There three losses were against the Niners, Bills, and Eagles, they beat each of them at other points in the season.
the 2011 team was not very good.
And in a way, so did the 2007 team. That said, if you are going to tell me the 2007 Cowboys, Packers, and Patriots were super teams - and the Giants beat them - then you can't have it both ways.
Let's put it this way, compare the teams some of the other Super Bowl teams ahead of the Giants had to play in the playoffs with who the Giants played.
Faced Rodgers twice, beat him once on the road, should have beaten him at home, shit call on Ballard non-TD.
Beat Romo twice.
Faced SF D twice, beat them on the road in the playoffs in swamp-like conditions.
Played the very early version of what the Seahawks had built into 2 SB appearances.
Beat the Jets while Ryan's program was still good.
Played the Saints in the dome at the height of Brees era.
Beat the Falcons.
Those were all good teams. That 9-7 record was very good. It won their highly competitive division on the last week of the season. Then they went and validated it by beating the Patriots in the SB (again).
And given the 1986 Giants D was one of the Top 5 SB defenses I find it hard to believe they're 17th.
These rankings are just fun for offseason chatter...but any team that could roll into Green Bay in the playoffs and smoke that Packers team, then take out the Brady Pats was pretty damn good in my book.
And in a way, so did the 2007 team. That said, if you are going to tell me the 2007 Cowboys, Packers, and Patriots were super teams - and the Giants beat them - then you can't have it both ways.
Let's put it this way, compare the teams some of the other Super Bowl teams ahead of the Giants had to play in the playoffs with who the Giants played.
And, while I dont think the 2011 team was particularly great and have no issue with it being ranked last, the one thing about the 2011 team was that playoff run was ridiculous. They beat Matt Ryan, Aaron Rodgers, and Tom Brady (and throw in Alex Smith for good measure). They were a frustrating team, but you will not find many teams who beat that level of qb in their playoff run (86 we beat Montana and Elway and 90 we beat Montana and Kelly all HOFers, I am cool with our runs).
Faced Rodgers twice, beat him once on the road, should have beaten him at home, shit call on Ballard non-TD.
Beat Romo twice.
Faced SF D twice, beat them on the road in the playoffs in swamp-like conditions.
Played the very early version of what the Seahawks had built into 2 SB appearances.
Beat the Jets while Ryan's program was still good.
Played the Saints in the dome at the height of Brees era.
Beat the Falcons.
Those were all good teams. That 9-7 record was very good. It won their highly competitive division on the last week of the season. Then they went and validated it by beating the Patriots in the SB (again).
They also lost to Rex Grossman twice, lost to Vince Young, etc. We got embarrassed on Monday night @ NO to the point where I think it was Jaws was ridiculing them. The ledger works both ways with the 2011 team.
Yeah, we sure sucked.
You don't give a title back ever, but both teams were reflective of the "catch lightning in a bottle" or "make a run" philosophy that the franchise has held since Eli was drafted.
The 2007 NY Giants are not among the bottom 3 super-bowl winners. After an 0-2 start, they won 14 out of their final 18 games, one of those loses being a close game to an undefeated Pats team in a meaningless week 17 game. They beat a 13-3 Cowboys team in Dallas in the divisional round. People underestimate how good that Cowboys team was. They were 12-1 at one point before resting their starters down the stretch, and had something like 12 pro bowlers. Multiple Hall of Famers (Witten, Owens, Ware). Then, they went into Lambeau and beat a 13 win packer team led by Favre, the #4 offense, and the #6 defense.
Oh, and they beat the 18-0 Pats and the greatest offense of all time.
Eli, Jacobs/Bradshaw, Plaxico, Steve Smith, Toomer, Boss. A top OL. And, the best DL in maybe the last 20 years.
"Eli must be the greatest QB of all Time!!!"
And Eli is a lock for the HOF!
You can't have it both ways. All the other great SB QB's (Brady, Rodgers, Brees, Farve, Big Ben, Peyton) of Eli's generation had supposedly better teams...so their accomplishments are diminished. And none of them beat a 17-0 team "by himself" (if you accept the premise, which I don't).
07 Giants weren't that bad either from a pure talent pov.
Here's hoping we add one or two more to this list.
Quote:
I know I'm biased but the 2007 Giants beat three VERY strong teams in the playoffs, including what was at the time widely considered "the best team in NFL history."
The 2007 NY Giants are not among the bottom 3 super-bowl winners. After an 0-2 start, they won 14 out of their final 18 games, one of those loses being a close game to an undefeated Pats team in a meaningless week 17 game. They beat a 13-3 Cowboys team in Dallas in the divisional round. People underestimate how good that Cowboys team was. They were 12-1 at one point before resting their starters down the stretch, and had something like 12 pro bowlers. Multiple Hall of Famers (Witten, Owens, Ware). Then, they went into Lambeau and beat a 13 win packer team led by Favre, the #4 offense, and the #6 defense.
Oh, and they beat the 18-0 Pats and the greatest offense of all time.
Eli, Jacobs/Bradshaw, Plaxico, Steve Smith, Toomer, Boss. A top OL. And, the best DL in maybe the last 20 years.
Week 17 against NE was the most meaningful regular season game we played all that year. We stayed with them all game and took the fear out of the equation when we met them in the Super Bowl. NE on the other hand knew or should have learned that we were not a team to take lightly.
We learned in that week 17 game that we could beat them and they were just another team, 16-0 or 18-0 be damned.
Here here. Now if you look at the SB and playoffs only, the Giants were the best NFL team in 2007, 2011.
BTW, a lot of the "experts" said it should have been #1.
BTW, a lot of the "experts" said it should have been #1.
SB42 was a modern day David vs. Goliath.
And the team had some real clunkers during the season, the Saints and both Washington games....
But that season, it was all Eli....
The 2011 team was a mediocre regular season team carried by Eli and the WRs.
2007: That was a really good team. Not only were they better than their record (13-6) would indicate, but they had maybe the toughest postseason of any team on that list. The Cowboys team was probably the best they've had in the last 22 years. Beating a 13-3 Favre at Lambeau? And, like everyone else is saying, if the Pats won they'd be #1 on this list, so not sure how the team that beat them is #50.
The '11 team got hot @ the right time & Eli played out of his mind.
Eli's total 4th quarter stats in Super Bowls:
19/28
280 Yards
2 TDs
0 INTs
Pretty awesome for just 2 quarters of football, especially considering they were the 2 most important quarters of football in his entire football career. Certainly a testament to his claim to fame which is that he rises to the challenge in big moments.
2011 was just a weird team. Some sensation wins - beating New England and SF on the road, beating Dallas twice - but some terrible losses. They got hot in the playoffs and bless em for it, but they weren't a great team by any means.
Definitely beats being the best Super Bowl loser 100 times out of a 100...
I actually concur - the 2007 and 2011 teams were SHITTY teams that CHOKED late in the season, backed into the playoffs.
Then got hot and ran the table against some of the best teams of the era - Green Bay and the Unbeaten Patriots in 07', San Francisco and New England again in 11'.
I'd say that the 1990 team was even worse than both of those - down to an ancient backup RB, backup QB - that was a coaching miracle.
FWIW, winning with a shitty team is a LOT more fun - winning as a massive underdog is a blast.
The thing with ranking teams is you have to choose whether you are ranking the teams at a given point in time or taking the whole season into account. The 2008 team during the first half of the season...was the best team in football hands down.
I think this list is accurate with regards to the 2007 and 2011 teams. Neither of those teams was great; they got hot at the right time. It's not an insult to say that.
Giants had fits with the Bears - going into that game, many had doubts.
I had given up on the 07' team after the late season home loss where Manning threw multiple Pick 6's... 4 Int's total I think. Just threw their season away.
And 11'?! Holy shit - I actually literally gave up on that team. After the late season loss to Washington, I said fuck this, life is too short to be livid over a shitty football team.
07 and 11 were horrible. Neither team deserved to be in the playoffs.
But I'm glad they were. :D
Yes, what happened at the end of 07' rolled into the best Giant team since 86'. Their late season win against Carolina cemented Home-field for the playoffs as theirs to lose. Freaking Burress.
I think this list is accurate with regards to the 2007 and 2011 teams. Neither of those teams was great; they got hot at the right time. It's not an insult to say that.
Again, the 2007-8 Giants had a stretch where they won 25 of 30 games. Lumping them in with 2011 is wrong.
The Coughlin Giants can be divided into two eras, for lack of a better term. There was the 2005-08 era, which was quite good. The Giants had a lot of talent. 12-4, 8-8 (with a boatload of injuries), 10-6, 13-3, and a Super Bowl. Then there was the 2009-2015 era, which despite the 2011 championship was largely mediocre to bad.
1990>2007, but 2007 was still a damned good team.
Giants had fits with the Bears - going into that game, many had doubts.
I had given up on the 07' team after the late season home loss where Manning threw multiple Pick 6's... 4 Int's total I think. Just threw their season away.
And 11'?! Holy shit - I actually literally gave up on that team. After the late season loss to Washington, I said fuck this, life is too short to be livid over a shitty football team.
07 and 11 were horrible. Neither team deserved to be in the playoffs.
But I'm glad they were. :D
Yes, what happened at the end of 07' rolled into the best Giant team since 86'. Their late season win against Carolina cemented Home-field for the playoffs as theirs to lose. Freaking Burress.
Weird. I don't remember anything horrible about 07 or 11 until you bring them up.
:)
What to you call the worst team ever to win a Super Bowl ?
The champion.
Quote:
Two of the three games they lost were to the #1 seeds in each conference... Who they then beat in the playoffs.
I think this list is accurate with regards to the 2007 and 2011 teams. Neither of those teams was great; they got hot at the right time. It's not an insult to say that.
Again, the 2007-8 Giants had a stretch where they won 25 of 30 games. Lumping them in with 2011 is wrong.
The Coughlin Giants can be divided into two eras, for lack of a better term. There was the 2005-08 era, which was quite good. The Giants had a lot of talent. 12-4, 8-8 (with a boatload of injuries), 10-6, 13-3, and a Super Bowl. Then there was the 2009-2015 era, which despite the 2011 championship was largely mediocre to bad.
1990>2007, but 2007 was still a damned good team.
Quote:
In comment 13839296 Go Terps said:
Quote:
Two of the three games they lost were to the #1 seeds in each conference... Who they then beat in the playoffs.
I think this list is accurate with regards to the 2007 and 2011 teams. Neither of those teams was great; they got hot at the right time. It's not an insult to say that.
Again, the 2007-8 Giants had a stretch where they won 25 of 30 games. Lumping them in with 2011 is wrong.
The Coughlin Giants can be divided into two eras, for lack of a better term. There was the 2005-08 era, which was quite good. The Giants had a lot of talent. 12-4, 8-8 (with a boatload of injuries), 10-6, 13-3, and a Super Bowl. Then there was the 2009-2015 era, which despite the 2011 championship was largely mediocre to bad.
1990>2007, but 2007 was still a damned good team.
The 1990 teams seems to suffer from winning as the underdog. But, it was a damn good team, as you pointed out. They were 10-0 at one point and finished 13-3. And they were aging, but still had a number of great players. They seem to be treated by history as if they were an 8-8 WC team that backed in to the playoffs.
This narrative about the 1990 Giants drives me nuts. Even the America's Game buys into it. That team was a powerhouse. Period. Simms got hurt late so they had to win with a backup QB but that's the only improbable thing about their post-season run. They had lost to the 49ers and the Bills by 4 points during the regular season. Neither game was a crazy upset and wouldn't have been viewed as such except again that we were playing with a backup QB.
How do make this stupid ass list and not discuss the gauntlets that each respective team went through? You can tell the list was made basically by rote. Pt differential and number of HOFers....great.
Any passionate football fan that has observed the league for 35 years or more could do a much better job at crafting a list. This one is trash.
Quote:
Two of the three games they lost were to the #1 seeds in each conference... Who they then beat in the playoffs.
I think this list is accurate with regards to the 2007 and 2011 teams. Neither of those teams was great; they got hot at the right time. It's not an insult to say that.
Again, the 2007-8 Giants had a stretch where they won 25 of 30 games. Lumping them in with 2011 is wrong.
The Coughlin Giants can be divided into two eras, for lack of a better term. There was the 2005-08 era, which was quite good. The Giants had a lot of talent. 12-4, 8-8 (with a boatload of injuries), 10-6, 13-3, and a Super Bowl. Then there was the 2009-2015 era, which despite the 2011 championship was largely mediocre to bad.
1990>2007, but 2007 was still a damned good team.
Yup. That 07 team had staying power. ONce it got to January in once piece it was ready for anyone. It could and did beat anyone. 11 team was similar in some regards but they were more of a flip the switch type team that only had so much gas left in the tank. Plus I just think the 07 team was more talented.
I don't reallt even have much of a problem with the 07-11 ranks but the 86-90 team was one of the greatest NFL teams of all time. There are the usual suspects like the 70s Steelers, 80s Niners and 90s Cowboys but after that those PArcells led Giants teams were as formidable as any. And they took down those 80s niners on multiple occasions.
This list reads like a football IQ test, or lack thereof.