Which is the best single-season team in NFL history?

As long as you're mentioning the Rams and we're including non-SB teams in the discussion, then the 2001 Rams Super Bowl team absolutely deserves mention here. Indeed, the 01 Rams were plainly better overall than the 99 champs.

Went 14-2 regular season (16-3 counting post-season) with, by far, the best offense in the league (and near the top amongst the best in history), and also one of the best defenses, that team was a true juggernaut. Their only losses were two regular season nailbiters, and in the Super Bowl on a long Vinatieri field goal in the final seconds. Short of the 07 Pats, hard to find a non-SB winner with a more impressive resume than that.

 

Would like to point out here that the 1976 Oakland Raiders went 13-1.

And they beat the Steelers. How could you not love that?

[/Fanboy]

 

Actually a valid point. Why don't the 76 Raiders appear in these discussions more often?

Went 16-1 overall, won the Super Bowl, and TWICE beat down the 76 Steeler team that CD Boogie regards as the greatest in all human history, once in the regular season, and then again with a 24-7 thrashing in the playoffs. And then mauled the Vikings 32-14 in the Super Bowl. Awfully damn impressive resume.

Still ain't the 85 Bears, though.

 

Re: 2007 Patriots: Where do they rank? If winning the Super Bowl is not a prerequisite, then are they #1? If it is a prerequisite, then do you rank them behind every team that won a Super Bowl? If not, why not? (I'm not sure how I would answer this one)
As for the best ever, I agree with the consensus of 85 Bears, 89 49ers and 07 Patriots. Not sure the 09 Colts with a 100% healthy Freeney don't belong on this list, but that's probably the fan in me.

 

Indeed, they likely would've. Considering their only losses were essentially intentional tanks when they rested their starters the final two games, and then Freeney's injury in the SB, that team was actually perilously close to an unbeaten season if they'd ...you know, actually tried for it.

But it's also exhibits why using injured players as an excuse is bullshit (including Franco and Rocky in 76). There are tons of team that you could arguably claim coulda woulda shoulda been there if not for injuries. You take the teams for what they were in these debates. If a key player was injured, tough shit, that's what they were.

 

If we are going to argue that the '07 Patriots are best ever, what about the Giants team that beat them?

 

I think Rypien was sacked something like 8 times during the 91 season. Just ridiculous.

Skins led the league in scoring. Second in scoring defense. Beat the piss out of people. Average game in the postseason was 34-14.

Three shutouts in the first four games of the season. And durrrr, Tony K's Bandwagon!!!!

Football Outsiders, for you stat nerds, claims the 91 Skins may be the most well-rounded team in NFL history.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/dvoa-ratings/2012/1991-dvoa-ratings-and-commentary

 

They haven't done '89 or '85 yet, to my knowledge.

 

Which is probably why they said "may be."

I'm not saying the 91 Skins ARE the best team in NFL history. But they're certainly in the discussion. I'm not EXPERT!!! enough to figure that one out. 85 and 89 are obviously strong favorites to top the list, for sure.

 

Good points. Although the 76 team had a better record, I think the 83 Raiders were more dominant. Had a couple of hiccups in the regular season, but once they got on a roll late, they crushed people, including a pretty good Washington team in Super Bowl XVIII.

When it comes to this list, I go more by an eyeball test than just statistics? I ask myself what teams, whenever they took the field, really would have shocked you if/when they lost?

 

They were obscenely good.

Two losses to divisional foes by a total of five points.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/was/1991.htm

 

Damn. I didn't realize that Skins team was so dominant. Kind of an enlightening thread.