Ranking the Super Bowl teams

[TaborJet]

Espn ranked all 80 Super Bowl participants.

Here is the link with all the details:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=super/rankings/80-61

Here is the complete list:

The Ultimate Super Power Rankings list

(Super Bowl losers in bold; *--strike season)

1. 1989 49ers (14-2, 3-0)

2. 1985 Bears (15-1, 3-0)

3. 1978 Steelers (14-2, 3-0)

4. 1992 Cowboys (13-3, 3-0)

5. 1984 49ers (15-1, 3-0)

6. 1996 Packers (13-3, 3-0)

7. 1972 Dolphins (14-0, 3-0)

8. 1986 Giants (14-2, 3-0)

9. 2004 Patriots (14-2, 3-0)

10. 1991 Redskins (14-2, 3-0)

11. 1994 49ers (13-3, 3-0)

12. 1998 Broncos (14-2, 3-0)

13. 1975 Steelers (12-2, 3-0)

14. 1999 Rams (13-3, 3-0)

15. 1971 Cowboys (11-3, 3-0)

16. 1979 Steelers (12-4, 3-0)

17. 1993 Cowboys (12-4, 3-0)

18. 1976 Raiders (13-1, 3-0)

19. 1978 Cowboys (12-4, 2-1)

20. 1997 Broncos (12-4, 4-0)

21. 1973 Dolphins (12-2, 3-0)

22. 1966 Packers (12-2, 2-0)

23. 2001 Rams (14-2, 2-1)

24. 1977 Cowboys (12-2, 3-0)

25. 1981 49ers (13-3, 3-0)

26. 1995 Cowboys (12-4, 3-0)

27. 1983 Raiders (12-4, 3-0)

28. 1983 Redskins (14-2, 2-1)

29. 2000 Ravens (12-4, 4-0)

30. 1987 Redskins* (11-4, 3-0)

31. 1974 Steelers (10-3-1, 3-0)

32. 2003 Patriots (14-2, 3-0)

33. 1990 Giants (13-3, 3-0)

34. 1984 Dolphins (14-2, 2-1)

35. 2002 Buccaneers (12-4, 3-0)

36. 1968 Colts (13-1, 2-1)

37. 1997 Packers (13-3, 2-1)

38. 1969 Chiefs (11-3, 3-0)

39. 1982 Redskins* (8-1, 4-0)

40. 1980 Raiders (11-5, 4-0)

41. 2005 Steelers (11-5, 4-0)

42. 1988 49ers (10-6, 3-0)

43. 1990 Bills (13-3, 2-1)

44. 1998 Falcons (14-2, 2-1)

45. 1969 Vikings (12-2, 2-1)

46. 2004 Eagles (13-3, 2-1)

47. 2001 Patriots (11-5, 3-0)

48. 1967 Packers (9-4-1, 3-0)

49. 1968 Jets (11-3, 2-0)

50. 2005 Seahawks (13-3, 2-1)

51. 1970 Colts (11-2-1, 3-0)

52. 1991 Bills (13-3, 2-1)

53. 1976 Vikings (11-2-1, 2-1)

54. 1980 Eagles (12-4, 2-1)

55. 1967 Raiders (13-1, 1-1)

56. 1971 Dolphins (10-3-1, 2-1)

57. 2002 Raiders (11-5, 2-1)

58. 1989 Broncos (11-5, 2-1)

59. 1972 Redskins (11-3, 2-1)

60. 1973 Vikings (12-2, 2-1)

61. 1977 Broncos (12-2, 2-1)

62. 1981 Bengals (12-4, 2-1)

63. 1975 Cowboys (10-4, 2-1)

64. 1987 Broncos* (10-4-1, 2-1)

65. 1974 Vikings (10-4, 2-1)

66. 1992 Bills (11-5, 3-1)

67. 1966 Chiefs (11-2-2, 1-1)

68. 1995 Steelers (11-5, 2-1)

69. 1988 Bengals (12-4, 2-1)

70. 1970 Cowboys (10-4, 2-1)

71. 1994 Chargers (11-5, 2-1)

72. 1999 Titans (13-3, 3-1)

73. 1993 Bills (12-4, 2-1)

74. 1996 Patriots (11-5, 2-1)

75. 1986 Broncos (11-5, 2-1)

76. 1985 Patriots (11-5, 3-1)

77. 1982 Dolphins* (7-2, 3-1)

78. 2000 Giants (12-4, 2-1)

79. 1979 Rams (9-7, 2-1)

80. 2003 Panthers (11-5, 3-1)

[johnny green balls]

what bull****. the jets beat a team that many considered "the best of all time" at the time are huge underdogs, change the face of the NFL in the process and we get a chump rating and one of the lowest ranked winning teams? ludicrous.

[oktaren]

what bull****. the jets beat a team that many considered "the best of all time" at the time are huge underdogs, change the face of the NFL in the process and we get a chump rating and one of the lowest ranked winning teams? ludicrous.

not only that they happened to put THE 1968 COLTS (YEAH THE TEAM WE BEAT IN THE SUPERBOWL) AHEAD OF US! what the hell is that? the team that lost the superbowl is ahead of the team that won?

[johnny green balls]

not only that they happened to put THE 1968 COLTS (YEAH THE TEAM WE BEAT IN THE SUPERBOWL) AHEAD OF US! what the hell is that? the team that lost the superbowl is ahead of the team that won?

some old bullllllshiiit

[JoeWillie]

I never pay attention to these ratings and power rankings because ultimately it's all based on opinion and conjecture.

It's like saying the '68 Jets would never have beaten the '85 Bears.

Nobody knows that unless they played on the field.

PS. By the way, Namath would have killed Ryan's blitzing "46" defense, much the same way Marino did. But that is, again, just one man's opinion.

[johnny green balls]

agreed-- stupid to think of it this way. most modern teams could probably beat the top 1960's teams because the allure of riches has ensured a lot more investment into developing athletes and full time training. also nutrition, innovations in playcalling make these comparisons worthless. you have to compare a team to its contemporaries for these rankings to mean anything.

[#27TheDominator]

agreed-- stupid to think of it this way. most modern teams could probably beat the top 1960's teams because the allure of riches has ensured a lot more investment into developing athletes and full time training. also nutrition, innovations in playcalling make these comparisons worthless. you have to compare a team to its contemporaries for these rankings to mean anything.

Modern teams could beat 60's teams because of advances in steroid use. There weren't too many solid 300 pounders before the chemical advantage. The super bowl Jets had one of the best arms of all time and one of the fastest receivers. The lines were underrated and easy to forget since nobody weighed 350lbs.