With that said teams don't win 14 of their final 17 games and allow 14ppg in the process with ****ty talent.
The only reason people consider that roster to be crap is because they weren't popular yet.
I knew it wouldn't be long before someone took offense, and you obviously are free to have a differing opinion BUT please don't misread my opinion.
Nowhere did I say they had a **tty roster or that it was crap.
No team will win a Super Bowl with a **tty roster. This team won a Super Bowl. The context of this conversation is comparing the greatest Super Bowl winning teams of all time.
They are all going to be really good teams that played well together, had talent, and made the plays they needed to make when it counted most........that's a given. But this conversation is comparing those teams, and even though they are all great there are some that are going to be greater than others.
Sure, it's picking straws..........like comparing 20 different super models. The "ugliest" super model is still going to be an absolute knock out and worthy of magazine covers.
Just in a realistic fashion, if I take the last 20 Super Bowl winning teams, I'm finding it hard to find 5 that I would rank worse than the 2001 Pats.
The 2011 Giants is a given, and while I want to say the 2007 Giants that may just be my bias playing with me.
The knee jerk reaction is to say the 2000 Ravens and 2015 Broncos because their offense was poor, but in each case their defense was just so absolute, other-worldy that I would give them the nod, too.
2010 Packers, 2012 Ravens, 2005 Steelers - perhaps worth a conversation and could go either way. Perhaps worth a conversation, but still not clear cut that they are worse than the 2001 Pats.
That's the beauty of sports debates, nothing is ever clear cut and worth a debate, but yes, my opinion on this is that they are still one of the bottom five Super Bowl winners from the past 20.
