I came across an article today from Cold Hard Football Facts that I must address. Certainly the Giants run to the Super Bowl this year was very special and deserving of great praise. Afterall, it’s remarkably similar to the Steelers run from just 2 years ago. The article states, however, that the Giants run was the single toughest playoff stretch to win the Super Bowl ever.
I respectfully disagree.
As I read through the arguement, it became very clear that their point was well made and very convincing. The Cold Hard Football Facts don’t lie. Unless, you choose not to include all the facts. The “data” that was gathered for some reason picked up for each team at the divisional round of the playoffs. Not sure why, except that it made a stronger case for the Giants I guess. Rule #1, no team that has a 1st round bye will EVER be considered to have the toughest SB road, so we can throw all those teams out. That’s the only rule…therefore, when trying to decide who had the toughest road the the SB you MUST include the Wild Card round, and you must play on the road in that round.
The Giants and the Steelers fit the bill and very few others. The 6th seed Steelers of 2005 played the Bengals (11-5, division winners) while the 5th seed Giants drew the Bucs (9-7, division winners) in the Wild Card round. I could stop now, because when you include ALL the data, the Steelers and the Giants opponents had the same record, not the 2 game advantage that the skewed CHFF’s show. [2005 NFL Standings] [2007 NFL Standings]
But…we all know in football there are intangibles that must be taken into account. One of the biggest is playing a division rival anytime, let alone the playoffs. The Steelers split their games in ‘05 with the Bengals but had just been beaten by them 5 weeks prior to cap off a 3 game losing streak that nearly knocked the Steelers from even making the playoffs. The Giants meanwhile drew the weakest of the division winners from a division that stunk it up all year and only produced ONE Pro Bowl player (from the whole division). How convenient that this game was not included in the CHFFs.
I think I’ve said enough to prove my point. I’m sure I could add more, but maybe I can hear some good points from someone else in regard to this. Fire away, because the Steelers of ‘05 made the MOST improbable run to the Super Bowl Championship ever…and it lasted 8 weeks, not just 4.
UPDATE: CHFF linked to 5goldenrings.net and has another “new” article on the same topic. This one actually includes Wild Card playoff data and shows clearly the point I was making…minus the intangible factors that I know CHFF aren’t interested in.
5 Comments
February 13, 2008 at 5:20 pm
As the author - somewhat - of that Feb 12th CHFF article on three game runs to the Super Bowl, I just wanted to share my original article - before CHFF edited and added their biline - that I sent them. As you will read, nowhere in my article did I claim that anyone had the best, greatest, toughest, easiest, most historic, etc. run over anyone else. All I did was put together some stats and send them along to CHFF. Of course, I’m grateful to them for publishing my findings and that it has caused so much discussion among such hardcore football fans like yourself. I just want to make it clear that I did not annoint any team as the best or most resiliant Super Bowl champion. I said the Giants run was/is amazing, that’s it. I explain why I did not count the wild-card round. The Giants’ run is statistically (note, statistically) most impressive when you use only the wins-losses numbers that I used - it is by no means all-encompassing, not even close. There is so much more that goes into the making of a champion than the won-loss records of it’s opponents. I just thought it would be interesting to compile the data and send it on. I offered very little in terms of opinion and commentary because I know they frown on that sort of thing.
“Blout says the Giants’ playoff run is the most amazing ever” - no I did not, CHFF said this in response to my article. Note where it says “Ed. note:” before the italicized intro - not my words.
Here’s what I wrote…(I sent them a follow-up email, and they’ve since updated the inaccurate stats I posted regarding the ‘06 Colts)
Dear CHFF,
As a New England Patriots fan of over thirty years, the facts surrounding Super Bowl 42 are among the coldest and hardest I’ve ever had to swallow. I am, however, a fan of football history and an admitted stat geek, so let’s get to the facts. Hopefully, none of your staff has already compiled these numbers - I didn’t see anything like this at your site. If anyone can follow this you guys can…
Since 1978, the year the NFL expanded the schedule to a 16-game regular season, there have been only four Super Bowl champions who had less regular season wins than the average of the teams they beat in the division, championship, and Super Bowl rounds of the playoffs (I did not include the wild-card round since not all Super Bowl champions played in that round). They are, the 1988 San Francisco 49ers, the 2001 New England Patriots, the 2005 Pittsburgh Steelers, and the 2007 New York Giants.
The 2001 Patriots were 11-5 and beat the Rams (14-2), Steelers (13-3), and Raiders (10-6) on their way to winning Super Bowl 36. Their opponents averaged 12.33 wins during the regular season. That’s a plus-1.33 wins for the champion Patriots’ opponents.
The 1988 49ers were 10-6 (tied with this season’s Giants for the least non-strike season victories for any Super Bowl champ) and beat the Bengals (12-4), the Bears (12-4), and the Vikings (11-5). Their opponents averaged 11.67 wins during the regular season - a plus-1.67 wins for their opponents.
The 2005 Steelers were 11-5 and beat the Seahawks (13-3), the Broncos (13-3), and the Colts (14-2). Their opponents averaged 13.33 wins during the regular season -a plus-2.33 wins for their opponents. That’s pretty impressive, but let’s look at the 2007 Giants…
The 2007 Giants were 10-6 and beat the Patriots (16-0), the Packers (13-3), and the Cowboys (13-3). Their opponents averaged 14 wins during the regular season -a plus-4 wins per opponent. That’s over a victory and a half more of a discrepancy in wins between the Giants and their opponents and the 2005 Steelers and their’s.
The more you look at it, the more amazing the Giant’s run gets.
Incidently, there have only been three teams that have beaten division, championship, and Super bowl round opponents who totaled 40 or more regular season victories, and all of them did it in the last four seasons; the 2004 Patriots (Phil-13, Pitt-15, Ind-12) 40 opponents wins; 2005 Steelers (see above) 40; and the 2007 Giants (see above) 42. So much for parity, this has become a top-heavy league.
-Jeff Blout
Stoneham MA
February 13, 2008 at 9:43 pm
I think its just bias that you want to give the 2005 Pittsburgh Steelers the more improbable SuperBowl victory. For one in that 1st round against Cincinatti the Steelers were trailing before Kimo blow out Carson Palmer’s knee. Before that injury Cincy was clearly the better team. So you can throw that out the window, that game with the Giants weak Buccs game is a wash. Also the 2005 Steelers were a team that went 15-1 the year prior and had gone to the AFC championship game. The Giants hadnt won a playoff game in 7 yrs prior to this run. The QBs faced by both teams give the edge to the Giants Palmer/Kitna,Peyton,Plummer,Hasselbeck for Pitt, Garcia,Romo,Favre,Brady for NYG. 2 sure lock HOFs and Romo a TD and playmaking machine.
The fact that the Giants won the SuperBowl after losing 40% of their offensive production when Tiki Barber retired should also be noted. What the Steelers did is impressive, but it will never be remembered in the lure of NFL history.
February 14, 2008 at 12:18 am
Jeff - thanks for the really LONG comment. I understand and agree with what you said…I guess I didn’t separate the Editor’s remarks from your remarks. I still disagree with your premise to pick and choose which games/stats to include. You can make numbers do anything you want when you pick and choose. I think you need to include the whole picture of the playoffs which does not discredit what the Giants did…because it was great. But it also keeps what the Steelers did on the front page, above the fold of history as well. Thanks again for your insitful comment.
Felix - Yes, you caught me! I am a biased Steelers fan, guilty as charged. This is a Steelers blog, go figure. As for the Steelers going 15-1 the prior season as a way of discrediting their accomplishment? They went 8-8 the next season, so does that negate the 15-1 and make the accomplishment even better? Each season is just that, a season to itself. You have to look at it that way when considering a particular “seasonal” accomplishment.
The Giants were great! I agree. The Steelers I believe were slightly better (especially when they were dead and buried with 4 weeks to go in the regular season). That adds much to the mystic of the historical run for the Steelers.
Oh and the Bengals…njuris are part of the game and Carson getting hurt did play a part but they weren’t winning prior to the injury since it occurred on the Bengals 2nd offensive snap of the game.
By the way I am David of 5goldenrings.net
Thanks for the comments…keep ‘em coming.
February 14, 2008 at 2:19 am
[...] Super Bowls NY Giants Super Bowl Run NOT the Toughest Ever [...]
February 14, 2008 at 10:23 am
I agree nor disagree with your assertion. However, keep in mind the Bucs basically quit their last 2 games and lost a game without Garcia to the 8-8 Texans.. So I necessarily do not put much stock in total wins-losses. The Bucs had the potential to be 11-5 or 12-4. The same as the Bengals. The fact that the Giants were horrible against winning teams all year - 1 win to 5 losses - makes the run even more historic. The Giants’ regular season opponents had a combined 73 - 23 (.76) record against the 2005 Steelers’ opponent record of 87 - 41 (.68). The Giants also defeated 3 opponents who defeated them during the year against the Steelers 2. And the final argument for someone for the Giants would be that they defeated a superior team from the superior conference while the Steelers were probably arguably better than 90% of the teams in the NFC in 2005. As a matter of fact, they would have essentially been tied for 2nd best in the NFC based on record alone.
Leave a Reply