so the Athletic wrote a piece where they calculated the most dominant team for each franchise over the last 50 years (so every team gets one entry on the list). They then ranked those teams. For sake of discussion the list
1. 85 Bears
2. 84 49ers
3. 91 Washington
4. 73 Dolphins
5. 07 Patriots
6. 75 Steelers
7. 01 Rams
8. 96 Packers
9. 98 Broncos
10. 77 Cowboys
11. 98 Vikings
12. 86 Giants
disclaimer: This is not a ranking of teams with the most Hall of Famers. The formula does not take into account excellence sustained over multiple seasons. It does not claim to identify the best or most accomplished teams, or the one that might be most likely to win a head-to-head matchup based on playing styles, quarterback strength, coaching, etc. The formula measures dominance across a single season,
2008 Pre-Plax would have been next (IMO)
The other Giants SB teams weren't supposed to win them.
Did they dominate their opponents? That Vikings team went 15-1 and probably should have won it all that year. Just like the 07 Pats. But that's why they play the games.
2008 Pre-Plax would have been next (IMO)
The other Giants SB teams weren't supposed to win them.
Agreed on 2008. I was a little too young for 86. 2008 was the best Giant team in my years as a fan.
To their credit, there were some really strong teams that season in the NFL, and Giants played and beat them all during the regular season.
The 86 Giants are ranked 12 out of 32..
Regular-season dominance is overrated anyway.
Because they lost the big game to a wildcard team
Dominance is about a high level of play, and a consistent level of play such that in any given match-up, there is a high likelihood of success.
It's why the 2007 Patriots still have the highest ELO of all time (per 538).
This isn't revisionist history, but I was pretty confident going into XLII. I thought we were going to win.
Quote:
No one could beat them. An amazing team if there ever was one. I don't know why they aren't #1.
Because they lost the big game to a wildcard team
• Regular-season win-loss record (35 percent). Dominant teams should win most of their games.
• Regular-season points-per-game ratio (35 percent). We divided PPG scored by PPG allowed to produce a ratio rewarding dominance across eras.
• Postseason winning percentage (10 percent). Dominant teams should win in the postseason, but we didn’t want a single playoff defeat to disqualify teams outright, which is why the weighting was lower.
• Postseason PPG ratio (10 percent). The 1985 Chicago Bears scored 9.1 points for every point allowed during the playoffs. We wanted that type of dominance to count for something.
• Regular-season and postseason point differential versus teams that finished the regular season with winning records (10 percent). We rewarded teams that played more games against strong opponents and dominated in those games.
After calculating percentile rankings for each team in each category, we weighted those results, added them together and multiplied by 100 to create power rankings on a 0-to-100 scale.
We have ordered the 32 teams below from most to least dominant. Each team’s entry includes a table revealing results from each variable used in the formula. PPG ratios are formatted so that the 1985 Bears team that outscored its opponents by a 9.1-to-1 ratio would read simply “9.1:1” in the table. Those interested in reading the original piece will find it here. Thanks again to Pro Football Reference for the data used in this analysis.
W-L
14-2
PPG Ratio
1.6:1
Playoff W-L
3-0
Playoff PPG Ratio
4.6:1
Point Diff. vs Winning Teams
103
Power Ranking
90.4
This team and the 1990 version (34th overall) were the only Giants teams since 1970 that contended seriously for spots in the overall top 25. The 1986 Giants far outpaced the others since 1970 in postseason PPG ratio and point differential against winning teams. This team outscored its three playoff opponents by 35-8 on average, producing the third-highest postseason PPG ratio for any team since 1970, behind the Bears (9.1) and 1989 49ers (4.8).
December and January need to be factored in with much more weight than September - November. That’s all there is to it.
Some of the games in the 80's, Parcells would get a lead and play possession football and let the defense seal the deal.
The 17-0 game against the Skins was about the biggest show of dominance a team could have. At no time did it seem like the Giants could lose.
So, by their own metric, the Giants were behind only the Bears and Niners in postseason dominance, yet they're only 12th in this ranking? Piss off with that nonsense.
Also, if I wanted to be really bitchy about it, the only thing that puts the Giants behind the '89 Niners in that ratio is a meaningless garbage time TD with 2 minutes remaining in the Super Bowl when all of the defensive starters were out of the game. Their ratio would have been 6.56 otherwise.
Did they dominate their opponents? That Vikings team went 15-1 and probably should have won it all that year. Just like the 07 Pats. But that's why they play the games.
They absolutely dominated in the playoffs. They completely destroyed the 49ers, shutout the Skins and dominated the second half of the SB against the Broncos to win by nearly 20 points.
And how were the 91 Redskins so much better than the 86 Giants? Had the same reg season record (14-2), including some close games. They had some blow outs early in the season, but some close ones late (including 2 Ls in the last 5 reg season games), whereas the 86 Giants finished the season strong (destroyed the Packers 55-24).
And 6 of their victories were in their lousy division against 5-11 Det Lions, 6-10 TB Bucs and 7-9 Bears. They went 1-1 against their best div rival, the 9-7 Vikings.
Anyone with a brain should see that the NFC East of '86 was significantly better than the NFC Central of '96 and the 86 Giants schedule was much more difficult than 96 Packers.
The 96 Packers also beat the 6-10 Rams, 7-9 Seahawks and 8-8 Chargers.
So, 8 of their victories were against teams with losing records, 1 against team with .500 record and 2 of their losses came against teams with 9-7 records (Vikes and Chiefs).
More dominant than 86 Giants? Ha!
Agree, and that's why the point differential method of declaring "dominance" is horse pucky.
If you factor in who the close game wins were accomplished against, Parcels' almost pathological fear of using Phil Simm's talent to his fullest extent, and factors like maybe if you could ask each team who they were physically beat up by the most after each game, the '86 Giants rank much closer to the '85 Bears (who deserve #1) than they appear on this list, IMO.
That Giants team knocked QBs out of games, again and again. It wasn't the right measure of them simply to look at a score; you had to look at how many men were left standing by games' end.
Quote:
The formula measures dominance across a single season, as defined by the following criteria:
• Regular-season win-loss record (35 percent). Dominant teams should win most of their games.
• Regular-season points-per-game ratio (35 percent). We divided PPG scored by PPG allowed to produce a ratio rewarding dominance across eras.
• Postseason winning percentage (10 percent). Dominant teams should win in the postseason, but we didn’t want a single playoff defeat to disqualify teams outright, which is why the weighting was lower.
• Postseason PPG ratio (10 percent). The 1985 Chicago Bears scored 9.1 points for every point allowed during the playoffs. We wanted that type of dominance to count for something.
• Regular-season and postseason point differential versus teams that finished the regular season with winning records (10 percent). We rewarded teams that played more games against strong opponents and dominated in those games.
After calculating percentile rankings for each team in each category, we weighted those results, added them together and multiplied by 100 to create power rankings on a 0-to-100 scale.
We have ordered the 32 teams below from most to least dominant. Each team’s entry includes a table revealing results from each variable used in the formula. PPG ratios are formatted so that the 1985 Bears team that outscored its opponents by a 9.1-to-1 ratio would read simply “9.1:1” in the table. Those interested in reading the original piece will find it here. Thanks again to Pro Football Reference for the data used in this analysis.
I feel like the factors they considered are relevant, but the weights they gave those factors seem pretty random. Why 35% for Regular season PPG differential but 10% for Playoff Win percentage? Just seems very arbitrary.
If you re-weight the factors to value the playoffs more and then re-weight performance as the season goes on (Game 16 matters more than Game 15 matters more than Game 14, etc.), then you would get a better list imo.
It's not perfect, and it's not the only thing that should be considered. It's just one methodology that uses a series of input to spit out results. It uses fewer inputs than what Vegas odds-makers use, but it is relatively effective.
You can read more about their process here (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/introducing-nfl-elo-ratings/).
In 2015, they ran a test to compare the ELO ratings of the most dominant NFL teams of all-time
The Elo rating, as longtime FiveThirtyEight football readers will recall, is our pet metric for evaluating a team’s skill level at any given moment. Elo is hardly the only power rating in town, but we like it because it’s a relatively simple algorithm with an elegant, endlessly customizable design that makes the most of the information it receives.
It’s also easy to compute for historical seasons, which is what my colleagues Reuben Fischer-Baum and Nate Silver did Wednesday in an interactive graphic that maps out the complete history of the NFL. It’s intended to help visualize the jagged peaks and valleys of a franchise’s performance from week to week and season to season. And no matter how you measure it, the zenith of that 2007 Patriots campaign is our interactive’s Mount Everest.
That’s why, for our master ranking of the best Elo seasons ever,5 we computed each team’s season-ending Elo6 and its season-long mean Elo7 in addition to its peak rating. The teams in the table above are ranked by the column labeled “blend,” which simply takes the average of the three measurements to get a more holistic picture of a team’s quality. (You can, of course, sort by any of the three component metrics as well.)
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-best-nfl-teams-of-all-time-according-to-elo/ - ( New Window )
Until the end of the season when everything started to click & their domination continued into the Playoffs & Super Bowl...
19-0 The Perfect Season
I heard there is a good book about it but I have ever been able to find a copy
Quote:
This team outscored its three playoff opponents by 35-8 on average, producing the third-highest postseason PPG ratio for any team since 1970, behind the Bears (9.1) and 1989 49ers (4.8).
So, by their own metric, the Giants were behind only the Bears and Niners in postseason dominance, yet they're only 12th in this ranking? Piss off with that nonsense.
Also, if I wanted to be really bitchy about it, the only thing that puts the Giants behind the '89 Niners in that ratio is a meaningless garbage time TD with 2 minutes remaining in the Super Bowl when all of the defensive starters were out of the game. Their ratio would have been 6.56 otherwise.
Really?
Doubtful. And even if the ratio was identical, the postseason run is why many people think the '89 team was the best Niner team ever when '84 was more consistently dominant.
1989 ran through the postseason 126-26...+100 differential is one of if not the highest ever.
Lost two regular season games by a combined 5 points.
8-0 on the road.