Toughest/Easiest schedules in football history

[Saban1]

In 1970, the AFL and NFL merged and became the NFL with the AFC and NFC having Inter-Conference games and the scheduling was much different than usual. Unlike the previous 3 years, the teams in the same division would play different teams outside of their division. For instance, in the NFC Eastern Division, the New York Giants only played 1 winning team outside of the NFC Eastern Division (Rams) and not any teams that made the playoffs. The Washington Redskins played 5 playoff teams in 1970 (49ers, Lions, Vikings, Raiders. and Bengals).

The Giants nearly won the Eastern Division as a result of this with a 9 and 5 record after their best since 1963 being 7 and 7. A couple of more breaks were that a game with the Jets had the Jets backfield (Namath, Snell, Boozer) wiped out with injuries. So, the Jets, Bills, and Patriots had three of the worst records in the AFC, and the Giants played all 3 of them as their AFC scheduled teams, and of course, the Giants won all 3 games of those games.

Another big break was the death of Vince Lombardi during the 1970 training camp. The Giants won both games with Washington with big 4th quarter comebacks. Would that have happened if Lombardi was still alive and healthy? I really don't think so. So, the Giants in 1970 played only one winning team out of 6 outside of their division and no playoff teams. They should have won their division.

The ultimate team that prospered from this was Dallas, who finally went to the Super Bowl that year. Dallas also got an easy schedule outside of their division that year, and with the Vikings getting upset in the first round of the playoffs, the Cowboys got to play first time playoff teams, Detroit and the 49ers, to get to the Super Bowl.

For what it's worth, the G-men swept the Cardinals. Yes, the second win was late in the season when StL was already on their slide. But the first of those wins was when Cards were in midst of that 8-2-1 start, and G-men beat them convincingly, 35-17. They also, at least, split with Dallas.

But a strange team they were. Yes, like you said Saban they took advantage of Jets/BIlls/Pats being on their schedule, but they did allow the Saints to beat them early; and later on they allowed Philly to beat them on MNF - Dandy Don and Keith Jackson, for some reason, announcing the 2nd half by themselves, lol. They had their chance in the finale, but totally laid an egg; and to a team who also didn't make the playoffs (Rams as mentioned)! So they didn't really deserve it end-of-day.

Two years later, despite no more Fran, Webster FWIW brought the G-men to another winning finish at 8-6. However, and not just because of the lesser record, I think they were weaker than two years prior. I'd say that the 1970 Giants were also better than the 1981 team that made the playoffs.



Both being just above mediocre, what '72 and '81 also have in common was that they split with Dallas in the finale due to the Cowboys already having their playoff positioning set. The difference was that the latter had the benefit of an extra playoff spot per conference thus they took that final spot and got on in. Yes, the '72 Giants wouldn't have gotten in anyway. The 8-5-1 Lions would have gotten that 6-seed instead.

'70 Redskins? Other than Dallas beating them convincingly both times, they were not bad; respectable-enough at 6-8. The tough schedule you point out, Saban, and beating NYG once or twice had Vince been around is quite agreeable. I think Washington likely-enough makes the playoffs had he been around for that sophomore effort that never was. A 9-win just-miss (still "in it" going into Wk#14) at the very least.

Upon going back to their old unis in 2000 (ditching 'GIANTS' and going back to 'ny'), I wish the BIG numbers on each side of the helmet stripe would have also returned! Same exact uni, as well as shade of (darker) blue, as the time-period being discussed!

The Giants seemed to have the Cards number through most of the 60's and in 1970, even in years when the Cardinals appeared to have a much better team than the Giants. In 1964, the last place Giants won only 2 games and tied 2 games. One of those Giants wins was against the 9-3-2 Cards and one of their ties was also against the Cardinals. That loss and/or tie cost the St. Louis Cardinals a spot in the NFL Championship game against the Baltimore Colts.

[Hail Casares]

I wouldn't say it was the toughest schedule in NFL history but I think in "Greatest Teams Ever" discussions, the 1985's Bears schedule is pretty remarkable in that they played and beat:

New England (11-5) x 2
NY Jets (11-5)
Dallas (10-6)
NY Giants (10-6)
Washington (10-6)
San Francisco (10-6)
LA Rams (11-5)

The only 10 wins teams they didn't beat were Miami (L), the LA Raiders, and Denver Broncos.

Their division was weak, but they played a lot of the NFL's best

[74_75_78_79_]

I wouldn't say it was the toughest schedule in NFL history but I think in "Greatest Teams Ever" discussions, the 1985's Bears schedule is pretty remarkable in that they played and beat:

New England (11-5) x 2
NY Jets (11-5)
Dallas (10-6)
NY Giants (10-6)
Washington (10-6)
San Francisco (10-6)
LA Rams (11-5)

The only 10 wins teams they didn't beat were Miami (L), the LA Raiders, and Denver Broncos.

Their division was weak, but they played a lot of the NFL's best

Excellent bring-up/reminder! I'm one who doesn't place them at..."Number One", but of course they're right up there! I'll hardly garner up any argument-energy if someone says that they are the Very Best Ever. This especially if I'm at a sports-bar in Chi-Town. And I'd never dare display my opinion that the SB-champ four years later was better (want to get out of town alive)! What you bring up is an example as to why they may be TOPS as well as reason for me, at a later time, to possibly move them up even further - perhaps ahead of those '89 Forty Niners.

I've said prior numerous times that the "only" contending offenses the Bears played against that year were either run-heavy or real balanced. And that the one true "high-octane" passing O they went against - Marino - was a loss. Not fair. First, that infamous Wk#13 MNF result was simply...an upset! The ball bounced against them a few as well. They did stunt the hell out of Theismann, Montana, and Simms! And Ken O'Brien, and especially Danny White, not quite "game-managers" either. Maybe that 'type' of pass-heavy offense with the right personnel to apply things would be the only chance of beating that Legendary defense - '78 or '79 Bradshaw/Stallworth/Swann in a time-machine-assisted showdown may end up a difference maker - but their pass-defense, if indeed their 'weakness', a slight and not at all glaring one. A full-bodied 'All Time Great' they were!

And, yes, a weak division they were in. But sweeping the 8-8 Packers, Bud Grant's final installment, and even the Lions who were actually 7-6 after Wk#13 with wins over Dal/SF/Mia/NYJ to their credit is all a nicely added "nothing to sneeze at" for good measure! Funny, ironic part of this whole Classic campaign...is Tampa Bay, who'd finish 2-14, giving them two of their toughest challenges in '85!

Yes, good bring-up/reminder! They're not far at all from #1 with me. But your post and my response, together, a good reason for me and others (who also don't see them as Numero Uno, that is) to at least move them up a couple notches or so.

PS - and don't ever forget...their Offense! I've said it a few times and I'll say it again - if their D in '85 was "only" as good as their O, they still finish top-seed aibeit a modest 11 or 12 wins, and still beat NYG/Rams/NE even if each win is close thus still hoist up the Vince!

[LeonardRachiele]

Once again I think of the 2008 Arizona Cardinals. They were 9-7 and played six of their games with teams in their Division. Most of their losses were blowouts. Recall these: 34 to 10 vs Vikings; 47 to7 vs Patriots; 48 to 20 vs Eagles

[Bryan]

I wouldn't say it was the toughest schedule in NFL history but I think in "Greatest Teams Ever" discussions, the 1985's Bears schedule is pretty remarkable in that they played and beat:

New England (11-5) x 2
NY Jets (11-5)
Dallas (10-6)
NY Giants (10-6)
Washington (10-6)
San Francisco (10-6)
LA Rams (11-5)

The only 10 wins teams they didn't beat were Miami (L), the LA Raiders, and Denver Broncos.

Their division was weak, but they played a lot of the NFL's best

One thing that was interesting about the 85 Bears is how they could easily dispatch the good teams, but then would seemingly get bored and 'struggle' to beat Tampa and Indianapolis.

[Brian wolf]

The Vikings had their chance to beat the Bears as well, but McMahon came in and pretended to be Dan Marino throwing to Willie Gault, as he showed Ditka why he needed him. Vikings could have had a winning record had they taken care of the Falcons and Eagles ...

[lastcat3]

The average winning percentage of the Vikings' 1975 opponents was .332. They didn't face a team that finished better than 8-6.

Quoting a post from page 1 that is almost four years old now but I guess its ok to reference it since no one else has responded to the post from what I have seen.

This is an interesting fact considering when I watch a lot of Vikings highlights from that era they often try to claim that the Vikings '75 team was the best of they had but was just upset by the Hail Mary play. If their opponents regular season record was that poor though you can definitely question that claim

[CSKreager]

1989 Dallas Cowboys

Yes, they were 1-15 but........ they had a very ROUGH schedule.

PHI/NYG/WSH 2x, Saints/Rams/49ers, GB 2x, MIA/KC (and that's without having to play the Broncos or Raiders).

13 of their 16 games were against teams .500 or better

Other than the 3-13 Falcons/5-11 Cardinals 2x (heck even PHX was .500 in late November before the wheels fell off)

[7DnBrnc53]

1989 Dallas Cowboys

Yes, they were 1-15 but........ they had a very ROUGH schedule.

PHI/NYG/WSH 2x, Saints/Rams/49ers, GB 2x, MIA/KC (and that's without having to play the Broncos or Raiders).

13 of their 16 games were against teams .500 or better

Other than the 3-13 Falcons/5-11 Cardinals 2x (heck even PHX was .500 in late November before the wheels fell off)

In that context, it's not that surprising that they improved six games the next year. They only had seven games against teams over .500 (adding Emmitt Smith and Novacek didn't hurt, either).

[CSKreager]

Once again I think of the 2008 Arizona Cardinals. They were 9-7 and played six of their games with teams in their Division. Most of their losses were blowouts. Recall these: 34 to 10 vs Vikings; 47 to7 vs Patriots; 48 to 20 vs Eagles

Philly didn't exactly play a gauntlet in 08- half of THEIR wins were vs Cleveland and the NFC West. They got swept by Jim Zorn and Washington!

Throw in the Cincy tie...... they would have been one of the least deserving SB teams ever had they gotten out of the desert with a win

Literally the only reason a 9-6-1 team even made the playoffs was Oakland winning a meaningless game vs TB