Jump to content

Rate 1990s Super Bowl Champions from #1-10


Recommended Posts

From the best squad to the worst squads to win a Super Bowl in the 1990s....

Was the 1995 Cowboys No. 1, 1994 Niners No. 2, 1998 Broncos No. 3? 1991 Redskins No. 10? Or the 1996 Packers 10? 

My opinion:

1. 1995 Cowboys 

2. 1992 Cowboys

3. 1993 Cowboys 

4. 1994 Niners

5. 1998 Broncos 

6. 1997 Broncos 

7. 1996 Packers 

8. 1991 Redskins 

9. 1999 Rams 

10. 1990 Giants 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, CP3MVP said:

91 Washington is arguably the GOAT team. They just weren’t flashy enough 

Honestly not sure if the OP just made a mistake, or has never watched or heard of the 91 Redskins. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, HTTRDynasty said:

Honestly not sure if the OP just made a mistake, or has never watched or heard of the 91 Redskins. 

When I saw the thread title, there was zero doubt in my mind who should be #1.

Edited by LieutenantGains
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 7DnBrnc53 said:

1. 1997 Broncos

2. 1998 Broncos

3. 1992 Cowboys

4. 1996 Packers

5. 1993 Cowboys

6. 1999 Rams

7. 1994 49ers

8. 1990 Giants

9. 1991 Redskins

10. 1995 Cowboys

No bias, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/15/2021 at 5:17 AM, Matts4313 said:
  1. 1992 Cowboys
  2. 1991 Redskins
  3. 1995 Cowboys
  4. 1993 Cowboys
  5. 1994 49ers
  6. 1996 Packers
  7. 1997 Broncos
  8. 1999 Rams
  9. 1998 Broncos
  10. 1990 Giants

 

8 hours ago, 7DnBrnc53 said:

1. 1997 Broncos

2. 1998 Broncos

3. 1992 Cowboys

4. 1996 Packers

5. 1993 Cowboys

6. 1999 Rams

7. 1994 49ers

8. 1990 Giants

9. 1991 Redskins

10. 1995 Cowboys

 

7 hours ago, Matts4313 said:

No bias, right?

I mean, this is a very pot meet kettle situation.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, 7DnBrnc53 said:

1. 1997 Broncos

2. 1998 Broncos

3. 1992 Cowboys

4. 1996 Packers

5. 1993 Cowboys

6. 1999 Rams

7. 1994 49ers

8. 1990 Giants

9. 1991 Redskins

10. 1995 Cowboys

I’m fascinated to see how you argue the 91 Redskins are 9th that don’t have to do with names on paper 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Jakuvious said:

 

 

I mean, this is a very pot meet kettle situation.

At least my opinion is shared by others and at least somewhat backed up by things like DVOA. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, CP3MVP said:

I’m fascinated to see how you argue the 91 Redskins are 9th that don’t have to do with names on paper 

The 91 Redskins benefited from an extremely weak NFC:

East: Randall Cunningham got hurt in Week 1, and the Eagles (a SB fave by some) were crippled. Dallas emerged on the scene, but they were one year away, and the Giants regressed without Parcells.

Central: The Lions and Bears overachieved that year. Those teams weren't as good as their records. They proved that the next year.

West: SF was good, but they didn't have Montana or a running game (Young wasn't great that year, and they had Bono leading them). Also, the Saints were what they were (a great D with a shaky O and a QB in Hebert that didn't show up in the playoffs), and the Falcons were another fluke like the Lions.

Why are people so high on this team? The 1987 Skins were better, especially on defense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...