Weakest above-500 team to NOT make the playoffs?

[74_75_78_79_]

There's the question of who the weakest ever playoff teams were. But considering that a handful of them at least won at least one of their playoff games, there then is the question as to who the weakest playoff teams who went one-and-done; it's a thread I started not too long ago. And then there's this other thread that I'm now starting as to who the weakest above-500 teams were who didn't make the post-season? I'll start off with a couple which very may - or maybe not - be the top two candidates...


1992 Colts, 9-7

A minus-86 PD they were as well as a minus-706 in total yardage. Because of their fifth-place schedule based on the year before, they avoided the NFC West thus the 14-2 Forty Niners and the 12-4 Saints. Not only did they get swept by their '91 fifth-place conterpart, San Diego, but they get blown out both times. Yes, the Chargers would go on to win their division at 11-5, Bobby Ross's debut with them, but still.

There were other real lopsided defeats like 38-0 at Buffalo in Wk#3. Following that second loss to the Chargers in Wk#9, which was a 26-0 shutout, they get shutout again to Miami, 28-0. The week after that, they would lose at home to the win-less Patriots in OT, and then get romped at Three Rivers, 30-14. That loss dropped them to 4-7. The following week they beat Buffalo in OT.

And five weeks earlier they did win their first game against the Dolphins which was in Miami. I actually remember that game. Rookie Steve Emtman scored that 90-yard INT-return for a TD to ice the game, 31-20, as time expired. That very win brought their record to 4-3 before, then, losing four-straight going into that just-mentioned OT win over the Bills.

Anyways, the Colts were now at 5-7 with that win over Buffalo; and they would also win the rest of their games from there to make it a 5-0 finish thus 9-7 record. Yes, a win is a win, but each of those remaining wins were close ones with each opponent being weak. First, at Foxboro, they just barely avenge their previous aforementioned loss to the Pats, 6-0. Then at the Jets the following week by just a score of 10-6 (in their previous meeting, Colts beat them 6-3 in OT). They beat the Cards penultimate week, 16-13, and beat David Shula's Bengals at Cincy, 21-17, in the finale.

Football Outsiders do not have a kind take on this team. They call them the 2nd-worst team in the league statistically that very season. Their 1,102 in rushing yards that year is the lowest single-season team total of the 1990s.

But what should at least be mentioned is that this was Ted Marchibroda's return to the Colts, starting his second stint with them as HC. He took over a team that finished 1-15 the year prior under Ron Meyer (0-5)/Rick Venturi (1-10) albeit they being at least, FWIW, respectable in the years leading right up to that debacle. Again, a win is a win and that 8-game improvement from the year before - and, at least, splitting with Miami & Buffalo - ought to account for something. Despite changes in the roster by then, this very campaign being a winning one may have served as a hint of their '95 run to the AFCCG (and extra playoff year in '96) to come.


'83 Cardinals, 8-7-1

Yes, the minus-54 PD but at least they gained more total yards than they allowed. But at Y/P, both they and their opponents were even at 4.9 whereas with the '92 Colts, Y/P favored their opponents at 5.1 to 4.5. Lopsided losses they sure did suffer as well. They lose to SF at home, 42-27, and get blasted both times each to Washington & Dallas by a four-game total score of 152-55 (basically an average final score of 38-14)! Even a bad Kansas City team got in on the act by beating them...38-14. As the case with '92 Colts beating Mia & Buf, the '83 Cards' "saving grace", along with posting that very winning season at 8-7-1, would be they beating both AFCCG-participants-to-be, Seattle at home and Raiders...in LA (quite the feather-in-cap)!! Sgt Rock getting his guys to put up 59 sacks not a bad notable for this team either. I guess you can call this team the non-playoff precursor of their '98 installment!

Well, anyways, thoughts? Better candidates, perhaps, than these two? Or close to it?

[CSKreager]

1988 Patriots

9-7 with a -34 PD

Beat the Bengals/Bears but got clocked by MIN/HOU

Had a chance to clinch in week 16 at Denver (who was coming off a 42-14 clubbing in Seattle) but lost at Mile High in what turned out to be Tony Dorsett’s final game

[sheajets]

1992 Colts I could've so easily ended up 4-12...but to get over .500 and finish 9-7 with an offense that seven times scored 10 or fewer points (shut out 3 times)

I have no idea how 16-13 in OT over 9-2 Buffalo happened that year. And this was a game Buffalo lead 13-3 in the 4th. Buffalo clearly thought they could just show up and Baltimore would lay down for them

[Citizen]

After going 13-33-1 the previous three years and before going 10-22 the next two years, the Packers somehow went 10-6 in 1989. They were fortunate on a few fronts:

- They had a last-place schedule, which meant the woeful Cowboys twice and not having to deal with the rough AFC Central;
- They got a breakout season from Sharpe and career years from Majkowski, Harris, and Fullwood;
- They got help from the boys in stripes in at least a couple of their wins.

It was certainly their best team under Lindy Infante, but not 10 wins' worth.

[74_75_78_79_]

After going 13-33-1 the previous three years and before going 10-22 the next two years, the Packers somehow went 10-6 in 1989. They were fortunate on a few fronts:

- They had a last-place schedule, which meant the woeful Cowboys twice and not having to deal with the rough AFC Central;
- They got a breakout season from Sharpe and career years from Majkowski, Harris, and Fullwood;
- They got help from the boys in stripes in at least a couple of their wins.

It was certainly their best team under Lindy Infante, but not 10 wins' worth.

I'm surprised the '78 Packers haven't been mentioned yet. #24 offense, #19 defense, minus-20 PD and giving up more than 850 total yards than they gained (however, with much more plays on the defense side of the ball, both offense and defense averaged the same amount of Y/P, each at 4.4). Seattle, who'd finish 9-7 in '78, was the only winning team they beat.

Yes, they're generally seen as 'flukey'. And, yes, enough truth to it. But at least the '89 Packers were a positive PD if, however, barely with a +6. They gained over 400 more in total yardage than they gave up but - opposite of '78 - there were more plays for them on offense which evened the Y/P between both sides of ball; at 5.5 each. The 'Majik' Pack was also #6 in offense and middling but at least not bad on D at #16. And they did at least split with the Vikings along with that real feather in their cap...the win at Candlestick!

[CSKreager]

1992 Colts I could've so easily ended up 4-12...but to get over .500 and finish 9-7 with an offense that seven times scored 10 or fewer points (shut out 3 times)

basically the inverse of teams that couldn't finish above .500 because their defense allowed way too many points (ie 1984/1985 Chargers, 2002/2004 Chiefs). They could have ended up 10-6 if they were competent in stopping the opponents

[Jay Z]

I'm surprised the '78 Packers haven't been mentioned yet. #24 offense, #19 defense, minus-20 PD and giving up more than 850 total yards than they gained (however, with much more plays on the defense side of the ball, both offense and defense averaged the same amount of Y/P, each at 4.4). Seattle, who'd finish 9-7 in '78, was the only winning team they beat.

Yes, they're generally seen as 'flukey'. And, yes, enough truth to it. But at least the '89 Packers were a positive PD if, however, barely with a +6. They gained over 400 more in total yardage than they gave up but - opposite of '78 - there were more plays for them on offense which evened the Y/P between both sides of ball; at 5.5 each. The 'Majik' Pack was also #6 in offense and middling but at least not bad on D at #16. And they did at least split with the Vikings along with that real feather in their cap...the win at Candlestick!

The 1978 Vikings had the same schedule, and the same record, as the 1978 Packers. They weren't much better. Yes, they beat the Cowboys, Broncos, and Eagles. They also lost to the Saints and the Buccaneers, who the Packers beat. Packers also beat the Chargers, another 9-7 team.

[74_75_78_79_]

I'm surprised the '78 Packers haven't been mentioned yet. #24 offense, #19 defense, minus-20 PD and giving up more than 850 total yards than they gained (however, with much more plays on the defense side of the ball, both offense and defense averaged the same amount of Y/P, each at 4.4). Seattle, who'd finish 9-7 in '78, was the only winning team they beat.

Yes, they're generally seen as 'flukey'. And, yes, enough truth to it. But at least the '89 Packers were a positive PD if, however, barely with a +6. They gained over 400 more in total yardage than they gave up but - opposite of '78 - there were more plays for them on offense which evened the Y/P between both sides of ball; at 5.5 each. The 'Majik' Pack was also #6 in offense and middling but at least not bad on D at #16. And they did at least split with the Vikings along with that real feather in their cap...the win at Candlestick!

The 1978 Vikings had the same schedule, and the same record, as the 1978 Packers. They weren't much better. Yes, they beat the Cowboys, Broncos, and Eagles. They also lost to the Saints and the Buccaneers, who the Packers beat. Packers also beat the Chargers, another 9-7 team.

Yes, and I honestly was aware of they beating the Chargers as well. What may have subconsciously made me forget of that upon writing the post was that the win was in midst of their 1-4 start before Coryell hopped on - then really revved things UP by the season's second-half!!

I seem to always praise the quality-wins while ignoring the losses to bad teams. Seems understandable enough - wins vs contenders attracting attention. But I guess you got to be able to beat the teams that you're "supposed" to beat as well!

Simply look within that very season - both Super Bowl participants, playing in arguably the Most Important Super Bowl of All-Time, were a combined 8-5 against the winning teams they played against! But they were a deafening combined 18-1 vs NON-winning teams. Dallas was the team that lost the one game. It was the 'Dolly Parton Game' to the 8-8-to-be Redskins in RFK on MNF, Wk#5!

The Steelers were 10-0 vs non-winners! But as for their 4-2 mark vs winners, one of those was in the finale at Denver with both teams’ playoff positions, basically, already set.

And yet the Rams go 7-1 vs winners in '78, Dallas & Pittsburgh being two of their…'victims', yet LA gets squashed at home to the Cowboys in the NFCCG, and Pittsburgh beats Dallas in SBXIII two weeks later to go down as an All-Time Great, so go figure.