Big Blue Interactive The Corner Forum  
Back to the Corner
 

Archived Thread

2011, 2007 Giants among 3 worst SB winners (rankings)

Beezer : 2/21/2018 4:52 pm
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 )
ehh...  
Eric from BBI : Admin : 2/21/2018 4:57 pm : link
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."
fuck it... will take that anyday...  
GMAN4LIFE : 2/21/2018 4:57 pm : link
.
and  
Eric from BBI : Admin : 2/21/2018 4:58 pm : link
the 1990 Giants beat the sure-bet "three-peat" 49ers in their own backyard and then defeated the "unstoppable" Bills offense.
Iíll gladly take being the worst SB winner of all time  
GiantGolfer : 2/21/2018 4:59 pm : link
Every. Damn. Year.
RE: ehh...  
Essex : 2/21/2018 4:59 pm : link
In comment 13838478 Eric from BBI said:
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 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.
Essex  
Eric from BBI : Admin : 2/21/2018 5:02 pm : link
Yup, the 2011 team got hot at the right time.

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.
Yea 2011 Giants....terrible team!  
Chris684 : 2/21/2018 5:03 pm : link
Beat Brady Twice.
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).


Who were #s 1-5?  
njm : 2/21/2018 5:04 pm : link
I'm not going through a 51 shot slide show to find out.

And given the 1986 Giants D was one of the Top 5 SB defenses I find it hard to believe they're 17th.
The 2011 Giants are kind of an IQ test for any football fan  
mfsd : 2/21/2018 5:05 pm : link
They didnít look as good bc they were banged up early on...quite unusually, they got healthier down the stretch (Rolle, Tuck, Baas to name a few) and were a very good team, that of course got hot at the right time.

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.
RE: Essex  
Essex : 2/21/2018 5:07 pm : link
In comment 13838486 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
Yup, the 2011 team got hot at the right time.

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).
RE: Yea 2011 Giants....terrible team!  
Essex : 2/21/2018 5:09 pm : link
In comment 13838488 Chris684 said:
Quote:
Beat Brady Twice.
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.
247 Sports  
TheMick7 : 2/21/2018 5:12 pm : link
The National Enquirer of Sports Websites!SMFH
2007, after beating TB in the Wild Card game,  
MOOPS : 2/21/2018 5:13 pm : link
we beat three teams that were a combined 45-6 on the season.
Yeah, we sure sucked.
Giants aside  
bluepepper : 2/21/2018 5:27 pm : link
pretty awful list. The 1996 Packers #6, the 1999 Rams at #14? Just ludicrous. Also the 2002 Bucs are one of the more underrated SB champs in general. Look at their post-season run sometime. Blew everyone out. No way they're 47th best. And sorry, it's just lazy to put the 1972 Dolphins first. They were unbeaten but not dominant. They played a pathetic schedule. Zero playoff opponents. Two winning teams (including the Alex Webster-era Giants!). Squeaked by in the post-season. I've always believed that their 1973 team was a lot better.
Bottom line is this, the Giants are 4 time SB winners, how could that  
SterlingArcher : 2/21/2018 5:41 pm : link
be bad?
The 2011 team was outscored for the season  
Go Terps : 2/21/2018 5:42 pm : link
They couldn't run and were awful defensively for most of the season. What do you want?

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.
If the 2007 Giants lose to that 2007 Patriots  
est1986 : 2/21/2018 6:38 pm : link
Then that 2007 Patriots team is hands down first place on that list so I donít understand how they went about ranking them at all
And if the Patriots won in 2007 they'd be the best team to win the SB.  
BestFeature : 2/21/2018 6:39 pm : link
.
RE: ehh...  
Breeze_94 : 2/21/2018 6:46 pm : link
In comment 13838480 Eric from BBI said:
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.
So if they are saying that the 2011/2007 teams  
JohnF : 2/21/2018 6:54 pm : link
were among the worst of all time, then the corollary to that is:

"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).

Who needs postseason stats?  
djm : 2/21/2018 7:05 pm : link
The 86 Giants only dominated at an unprecedented level and they dominated hof teams and coaching staffs. But hey, 17th best. Never mind the facts.

07 Giants weren't that bad either from a pure talent pov.

Here's hoping we add one or two more to this list.
Who thinks of this shit  
Rjanyg : 2/21/2018 7:09 pm : link
I mean, they win the freaking super bowl. Who give a shit what their overall record and stats were?
RE: RE: ehh...  
MOOPS : 2/21/2018 7:54 pm : link
In comment 13838579 Breeze_94 said:
Quote:
In comment 13838480 Eric from BBI said:


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.
RE: Iíll gladly take being the worst SB winner of all time  
mrvax : 2/21/2018 8:08 pm : link
In comment 13838483 GiantGolfer said:
Quote:
Every. Damn. Year.



Here here. Now if you look at the SB and playoffs only, the Giants were the best NFL team in 2007, 2011.
I watched a top 10 list  
short lease : 2/21/2018 10:19 pm : link
on the NFL network a couple of days ago and they had the 2007 SB ranked 2nd (only losing to Pittsburgh vs. Arizona) as the greatest SB ever played. So, there is that ...

BTW, a lot of the "experts" said it should have been #1.
RE: I watched a top 10 list  
mrvax : 2/21/2018 10:31 pm : link
In comment 13838709 short lease said:
Quote:
on the NFL network a couple of days ago and they had the 2007 SB ranked 2nd (only losing to Pittsburgh vs. Arizona) as the greatest SB ever played. So, there is that ...

BTW, a lot of the "experts" said it should have been #1.


SB42 was a modern day David vs. Goliath.
Three Words..  
blueblood : 2/21/2018 10:40 pm : link
JUST WIN BABY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The 2011 team was more than "hot at the right time".  
NyquistX3 : 2/21/2018 10:46 pm : link
The pass rush got healthy at the end of the season. Osi only played in 9 games that year and missed all of December but came back for Week 17 vs. Dallas and looked awesome. Justin Tuck battled a neck injury all season and played better in the playoffs. If you look at a snapshot in time of that 2011 playoff team (not the regular season), it was a great team, IMO.
That 2011 defense  
Doomster : 2/22/2018 8:44 am : link
gave up 400 points, more points than the offense scored.....but they went from 25 ppg during the reg season to 14 ppg in the post season.....that was the difference...

And the team had some real clunkers during the season, the Saints and both Washington games....

But that season, it was all Eli....
I'd rather be the worst team to win a super bowl  
cjac : 2/22/2018 9:48 am : link
than the best team to lose one
The 2007 team was a very good team that was partly held  
BrettNYG10 : 2/22/2018 9:51 am : link
Back by a still-developing Eli during the regular season.

The 2011 team was a mediocre regular season team carried by Eli and the WRs.
I'm OK with 2011 being one of the worst  
Knee of Theismann : 2/22/2018 11:06 am : link
I mean they did lose 5 out of 6 games in one stretch, but that's OK, it's a testament to how good Eli was that season. He basically carried that team to a Super Bowl victory on his own. It sucks he doesn't have the NFL MVP trophy to show for it. But that's OK, a 2nd super bowl MVP is fine.

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.
2007 was a good team.  
Brown Recluse : 2/22/2018 11:23 am : link
They peaked at the right time and continued to kick everyones ass in 2008 until Plax shot himself and the defensive line got injured.
2007 team was a very, very good team.  
SFGFNCGiantsFan : 2/22/2018 11:23 am : link
& their success in '08 before Plax shot himself proves as much.

The '11 team got hot @ the right time & Eli played out of his mind.

That Eli Performance in the 4th quarter of SB 42  
Knee of Theismann : 2/22/2018 11:35 am : link
Is hands down the greatest 4th quarter performance by any player in Super Bowl history. In the 4th quarter he was 9/14 for 162 yards and 2 TDs. Extrapolated over a whole game that would be 648 yards and 8 TDs.

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.
the 2007 team was much, much better than generally credited  
Greg from LI : 2/22/2018 11:39 am : link
Got off to a lousy start when the defense had trouble picking up Spags' schemes. After that, as others have noted, they then won 14 of 18 over the rest of 2007, including road wins against a pair of 13-3 teams in the playoffs and beating the almighty 18-1 Patriots. They then won 11 of their first 12 in 2008 before Plax derailed the season. That's a 25-5 record over 30 games. They were not a fluke by any means.

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.
RE: Iíll gladly take being the worst SB winner of all time  
Stu11 : 2/22/2018 12:32 pm : link
In comment 13838483 GiantGolfer said:
Quote:
Every. Damn. Year.

Definitely beats being the best Super Bowl loser 100 times out of a 100...
Waste of time  
PaulN : 2/22/2018 12:45 pm : link
Watching those shows, plus there is a bias against New York teams. People outside of New York hate New York for the most part. It is no different on all these talk shows, ESPN (Boston Based), MLB/NFL/NHL/NBA networks, they are all the same bullshit.
It's relative.  
x meadowlander : 2/22/2018 1:41 pm : link
It's about being HOT in the playoffs.

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.
fine with the 2011 team  
AnnapolisMike : 2/22/2018 2:11 pm : link
But that 2007 team that was one of the best of all time over a period of time. They happened to peak at the right time. And carried over that dominance into the 2008 season. That was a good football team that no one wanted to play.

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.

The 1990 team was way better than either 2007 or 2011  
Go Terps : 2/22/2018 2:29 pm : link
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.
90', 07', 11'...  
x meadowlander : 2/22/2018 2:53 pm : link
...nobody would have been surprised to see any of those teams go one-and-done.

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.
RE: The 1990 team was way better than either 2007 or 2011  
Greg from LI : 2/22/2018 2:58 pm : link
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.
RE: 90', 07', 11'...  
Beezer : 2/22/2018 3:50 pm : link
In comment 13839344 x meadowlander said:
Quote:
...nobody would have been surprised to see any of those teams go one-and-done.

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 do you call a guy who graduated last in his med school class ?  
Ron from Ninerland : 2/22/2018 3:55 pm : link
A doctor.

What to you call the worst team ever to win a Super Bowl ?

The champion.
RE: RE: The 1990 team was way better than either 2007 or 2011  
Matt M. : 2/22/2018 4:32 pm : link
In comment 13839350 Greg from LI said:
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.
RE: RE: RE: The 1990 team was way better than either 2007 or 2011  
bluepepper : 2/22/2018 4:51 pm : link
In comment 13839459 Matt M. said:
Quote:
In comment 13839350 Greg from LI said:


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.
You know what?  
montanagiant : 2/22/2018 5:10 pm : link
Those 3 trophies we got for each of those wins shines every bit as bright as everyone else's
it's just a garbage list  
djm : 2/23/2018 2:18 pm : link
it doesn't take into account degree of difficulty that these SB winning teams endured or the schedules both regular season and postseason. No mention of the division these teams played in...oh year, the Giants play in the best division in all of sports...that's just a FACT. Even the 2011 division wasn't terrible and that might have been the worst one we've seen in years for NFC East standards.

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.
RE: RE: The 1990 team was way better than either 2007 or 2011  
djm : 2/23/2018 2:23 pm : link
In comment 13839350 Greg from LI said:
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.


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.
People forget that the Giants were big underdogs in XXV for one reason  
Greg from LI : 2/23/2018 2:36 pm : link
And that was Simms' injury. It wasn't because the team as a whole was so outclassed by the Niners or the Bills. It was because they were playing a backup QB who had barely played before 1990 against the repeat champion Niners and a Bills team that won the AFC title 51-3. Drawing conclusions about the 1990 Giants based on those betting lines is a major mistake. As others have pointed out, that team started the season 10-0. Two of their three regular season losses were narrow losses against conference championship game teams, both of whom the Giants beat in the playoffs. That was a VERY good team. I've never seen a team that made fewer mistakes that that team. They maximized their output because they never beat themselves.
These lists are dumb..  
Sean : 2/24/2018 9:44 pm : link
The 2011 Giants went into Lambeau and kicked the 15-1 Packers ass. If you people get wrapped into this stuff, just eliminate the playoffs all together & give the trophy to the team with the best regular season record.
The 1986 Giants team  
Matt in SGS : 2/24/2018 10:37 pm : link
rolled 3 franchises in the playoffs who combined for 10 Super Bowl appearances and 6 championships in the 1980s, when you had several powerhouse teams.

This list reads like a football IQ test, or lack thereof.
Back to the Corner