Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Posted: **Tue Mar 17, 2026 7:40 am**

Fourth-best run defense in the league = "garbage." Eleventh-best run offense in the league, even with appalling mediocrities like Levens and Bennett = "garbage." Fifth-best Super Bowl champ of all time, per ESPN = "one of the two worst."

I learn so much here!

Posted: **Tue Mar 17, 2026 8:03 am**

The 96 Pack were fourth against the run because they played a lot of lower-rated ground attacks. And, who cares what ESPN says? They probably have the 91 Redskins (another vastly overrated team) in the top two.

Posted: **Tue Mar 17, 2026 4:18 pm**

7DnBrnc53 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 17, 2026 8:03 am The 96 Pack were fourth against the run because they played a lot of lower-rated ground attacks. And, who cares what ESPN says? They probably have the 91 Redskins (another vastly overrated team) in the top two.

The Packers played the AFC West so they did play three of the top 5 rushing attacks, which were all from that division. They also played the 49ers and Eagles which were top 10. Packers themselves were #11 and Lions were #12 and they played them twice. So that's 7 games against above average running teams, they did not play a lot of lower-rated ground attacks.

Also their supposedly weak LBs and CBs gave up 12 TD passes and had 26 interceptions. Whereas the Jags gave up 24 TD passes and had 13 interceptions. The Jags defense was not good, even at the end of the year. The 5-0 run to get into the playoffs was all against .500 teams or worse, an easy schedule. They did come up with Means in the playoffs, but the Pats showed that Means could be stopped and the rest of the offense was not good at getting points on the board. So they didn't actually make the Super Bowl.

Means in a dome is not exactly the greatest environment for the kind of game you think the Jags could win, that the Jags are going to mount any sort of defense at all against the #1 offense or that they are going to win by Hollis kicking 18 field goals.

Posted: **Tue Mar 17, 2026 5:47 pm**

The trophy presentation belongs in the sanctity of the locker room, not on a hastily built stage at midfield. This goes for MLB, too.

Posted: **Tue Mar 17, 2026 8:01 pm**

7DnBrnc53 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 17, 2026 8:03 am The 96 Pack were fourth against the run because they played a lot of lower-rated ground attacks. And, who cares what ESPN says? They probably have the 91 Redskins (another vastly overrated team) in the top two.

Rushing yards allowed isn't a great stat, because the Packers often went up on teams early, and opponents were forced to abandon the run. That said, the Packers defense ranked 5th best in rushing yards per attempt. In their two final games, they faced a pair of 1,100 yard rushers. Anthony Johnson had 11 carries for 31 yards, and Curtis Martin had 11 carries for 42 yards. It is simply and unequivocally nonsensical to call the 1996 Packers "garbage" against the run, especially when you use the 1997 Packers as an example. In 1997, Sean Jones had retired, Reggie White was a year older, and Gilbert Brown was a year fatter.

Posted: **Wed Mar 18, 2026 4:36 am**

7DnBrnc53 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 17, 2026 8:03 am The 96 Pack were fourth against the run because they played a lot of lower-rated ground attacks. And, who cares what ESPN says? They probably have the 91 Redskins (another vastly overrated team) in the top two.

What’s another team that you would consider the 91 Skins about as good as out of curiosity?

Posted: **Wed Mar 18, 2026 6:15 am**

The Packers played the AFC West so they did play three of the top 5 rushing attacks, which were all from that division. They also played the 49ers and Eagles which were top 10. Packers themselves were #11 and Lions were #12 and they played them twice. So that's 7 games against above average running teams, they did not play a lot of lower-rated ground attacks.

1. 1996 49ers had a legit running game?

.

2. When they played the Broncos, Denver wasn't trying to win. I don't think that TD played the second half (Elway didn't play at all).

3. When they played @Kansas City (with an older Marcus Allen and no other feature back), they gave up 182 yards on 40 carries. Not impressive.

What’s another team that you would consider the 91 Skins about as good as out of curiosity?

Lots of teams. 70's Steelers. Late 90's Broncos. LOB Seahawks. More than you think. 91 Redskins were old.

Posted: **Wed Mar 18, 2026 12:12 pm**

7DnBrnc53 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 18, 2026 6:15 am
The Packers played the AFC West so they did play three of the top 5 rushing attacks, which were all from that division. They also played the 49ers and Eagles which were top 10. Packers themselves were #11 and Lions were #12 and they played them twice. So that's 7 games against above average running teams, they did not play a lot of lower-rated ground attacks.
1. 1996 49ers had a legit running game? .

2. When they played the Broncos, Denver wasn't trying to win. I don't think that TD played the second half (Elway didn't play at all).

3. When they played @Kansas City (with an older Marcus Allen and no other feature back), they gave up 182 yards on 40 carries. Not impressive.

What’s another team that you would consider the 91 Skins about as good as out of curiosity?
Lots of teams. 70's Steelers. Late 90's Broncos. LOB Seahawks. More than you think. 91 Redskins were old.

I’d mostly agree with the stuff in reply to the first question. The Niners run game (outside of any rushing Steve Young did) was the weak point of those the 95 and 96 teams.

As for my question, to elaborate I didn’t ask who were some teams you would take over them (though thank you for adding those).

I asked (and I’ll add, primarily among Super Bowl champions) who would be another team that you could see the 91 Skins ranking next to at the end of the day?

Call it one of the follow ups that my mind jumps to next, but when people call something overrated, I tend to wonder where they would rank that thing, and how “low” they are on it if you will.

From a Seahawks fan, the 2013 team was excellent (I would probably rank them in the teens if we did a full ranking), but even if they weren’t able to sustain it as well, on the year itself, I’d take the 91 Skins over the 2013 Seahawks. The biggest thing for me is the gap in offenses, given that both defenses were top among the very best in their years, and the fact that the Skins wouldn’t have had strictly enforced illegal contact to help them out, and their offense was better.

That makes the Seahawks defense all the more impressive, but both teams were top two or three on that end in their respective years.

91 Skins may have been in the right place at the right time to accomplish everything they did, and may be ranked a tad too high by some who crunch the numbers (though in my stats, the strength of their schedule is something they are knocked for), but they thoroughly dominated their season and were very well rounded.

I may have said this before, but I view strength of schedule as something to be acknowledged, but it’s more of a tiebreaker than anything else if the things we are comparing otherwise performed similarly.

At least as far as regular seasons go, most of the best teams had schedules that are easier than average when calculated out.

As for the 91 Skins, if we are factoring strength of schedule more heavily, one team that I would likely rank them over are the 1984 49ers. If you want to say that team had more talent, then I’m not going to argue with that, but their schedule was even easier than the 91 Skins when calculated out.

I’d probably say middle or later part of the top ten for the 91 Skins (and above any non-champions), but that’s just me.

I might do a post ranking the 90 score percentage champs, and they are in that general range for me in a rough draft of that at least.

Posted: **Wed Mar 18, 2026 10:28 pm**

7DnBrnc53 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 18, 2026 6:15 am
The Packers played the AFC West so they did play three of the top 5 rushing attacks, which were all from that division. They also played the 49ers and Eagles which were top 10. Packers themselves were #11 and Lions were #12 and they played them twice. So that's 7 games against above average running teams, they did not play a lot of lower-rated ground attacks.
1. 1996 49ers had a legit running game? .

2. When they played the Broncos, Denver wasn't trying to win. I don't think that TD played the second half (Elway didn't play at all).

3. When they played @Kansas City (with an older Marcus Allen and no other feature back), they gave up 182 yards on 40 carries. Not impressive.

The 49ers were above average in yards and yards per carry. There are only so many teams.

They played Barry Sanders twice, Rickey Watters, Terrell Davis, Emmitt Smith, Curtis Martin, and Anthony Johnson. Why don't you tell me the thousands of top backs that they did somehow not play in 1996. There were only so many games against top runners and they played some of them.

Posted: **Wed Mar 18, 2026 10:29 pm**

7DnBrnc53 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 18, 2026 6:15 am 1. 1996 49ers had a legit running game? .

2. When they played the Broncos, Denver wasn't trying to win. I don't think that TD played the second half (Elway didn't play at all).

3. When they played @Kansas City (with an older Marcus Allen and no other feature back), they gave up 182 yards on 40 carries. Not impressive.

The 49ers were above average in yards and yards per carry. There are only so many teams.

They played Barry Sanders twice, Rickey Watters, Terrell Davis, Emmitt Smith, Curtis Martin, and Anthony Johnson. Why don't you tell me the thousands of top backs that they did somehow not play in 1996. There were only so many games against top runners and they played some of them.

Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Your Unpopular Football Opinions

Re: Your Unpopular Football Opinions

Re: Your Unpopular Football Opinions

Re: Your Unpopular Football Opinions

Re: Your Unpopular Football Opinions

Re: Your Unpopular Football Opinions

Re: Your Unpopular Football Opinions

Re: Your Unpopular Football Opinions

Re: Your Unpopular Football Opinions

Re: Your Unpopular Football Opinions

Re: Your Unpopular Football Opinions