Championship Teams That Should Have Won More

[LastWhiteSoxFanStanding]

I just finished watching the 30 for 30 doc on the 1985 Bears and what struck me is how a team that could be considered the best football team of all time still had so much unfulfilled potential. People really expected them to be even better that particular year (they didn't get a shutout in the Super Bowl) and of course people expected more Super Bowl wins.

What other championship teams almost feel like letdowns because they should have done and won more? I think I have one or two others in mind, but I am curious to hear others opinions. I am sure there are great teams out there that aren't even on my radar.

Teams like the 03 Cubs or the 90s Buffalo Bills don't count because they never won the championship.

[Easy Mac]

95 Braves

[heybrad]

I know the Shaq and Kobe Lakers won 3 but if they could have stuck together i'm sure they could have won at least one more.

[digamma]

The early 2000s Miami teams. (College football)

[Kodos]

The Bulls, if Jordan hadn't played baseball for a couple seasons.

[Comey]

The 86 Mets, perhaps? Maybe the 88-90 A's...

[albionmoonlight]

The mid-2000's USC football teams. They only won one BCS Championship during that time, even though they seemed like the clear best team for a three year stretch.

[NoSkillz]

Maybe the 92/93 era Toronto Blue Jays would qualify. They were incredibly deep talent-wise, still had a wonderful farm system and were cash rich at the time, selling out Skydome every single game.

The strike in 94 was the beginning of the end for them, with Pat Gillick leaving the team and soon after, most of the top stars on the team.

[LastWhiteSoxFanStanding]

To me, the 1986 Mets team (which I didn't even think of) is closest in spirit to the 1985 Bears. I believe the 1985 Bears was one of the youngest if not youngest team in the NFL (25.7 years of age). And it seemed like the sky was the limit for them. They closest they came to winning again was 1988 when they got manhandled in the 1988 NFC Championship game.

The Mets were 108-54 and obviously incredibly dominant and loaded with young talent. Daryl Strawberry, Dwight Gooden, Lenny Dykstra, etc Their hitters were 27.9 years of age and their pitchers were 25.6 years of age. Like the Bears, they never got back to the World Series, with the closest coming in 1988 when they lost to the Dodgers in the playoffs.

What did the Bears in was McMahon could never stay healthy and too much conflicting egos in the locker room. For the Mets, I would say it was drugs although I know less about them.

Yeah that 1986 Mets team was great. And almost forgotten? They are almost seen as a footnote to the 86 Red Sox, even though they were the better team. OOTP is doing a a tournament of the best teams of all time. They do list the 1986 Mets as the 7th best team of all time. Will be interesting to see how they fare in the simulation.

[albionmoonlight]

I'd like to hear some of our Eruos chime in about soccer teams that meet this criteria.

[CU Tiger]

90s cowboys.
If Jimmy and Jerry play nice they win 4 straight easily and maybe more

[Comey]

Originally Posted by NoSkillz

Maybe the 92/93 era Toronto Blue Jays would qualify. They were incredibly deep talent-wise, still had a wonderful farm system and were cash rich at the time, selling out Skydome every single game.

The strike in 94 was the beginning of the end for them, with Pat Gillick leaving the team and soon after, most of the top stars on the team.

The '94 Blue Jays were in third place, 55-60 at the time of the strike. They were mediocre before then. And the '91 Blue Jays didn't win the division.

I'd say the 92-93 outfit stood on its own, and won as much as they should.

[SteveMax58]

Yep, some of the same as others. My list is really about teams that only got it once, and seemed like they should have gotten a 2nd.

86 Mets - incredible starting pitching and bullpen. This team had Randy Myers, Rick Aguilera, Kevin Mitchell, and HoJo before they became good players. Loaded.

89 A's - of course they made it to the W'S 3 straight but only won it once. Crazy good lineup and very good 1/2 starting pitching (probably why they win the 89 series so easily ). Oh and the Eck.

95 Braves - everybody knows the names here and WS appearances. Nuff said.

99 Rams - most dominant offense I can recall seeing. Almost got the 2nd but really a shame this team didn't have more healthy years together.

85 Bears - agree this dominant defense should have won another title, and probably would have, if not for Buddy leaving.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by NoSkillz

Maybe the 92/93 era Toronto Blue Jays would qualify. They were incredibly deep talent-wise, still had a wonderful farm system and were cash rich at the time, selling out Skydome every single game.

The strike in 94 was the beginning of the end for them, with Pat Gillick leaving the team and soon after, most of the top stars on the team.

Yeah...that 94 team wouldn't have made the postseason anyway, but...yeah the wheels fell off that team quickly but really they started being dominant from around 87 when they didn't make the post-season and kept tweaking it until it worked in the 90s..and I don't know if that team would've made it through the three ring circus of expanded playoffs we have now.

[albionmoonlight]

'77 Trail Blazers.

A lot of it, of course, has to do with one specific injury. But that team could have easily won several more titles had Walton's feet held up.

[EagleFan]

2008 Phillies

[JeeberD]

Originally Posted by Kodos

The Bulls, if Jordan hadn't played baseball for a couple seasons.

Nope. The Rockets still would have won. The Rockets were 3-1 against the Bulls the two years before Jordan "retired", and Hakeem was unstoppable those two championship years.

[JeeberD]

Dola -

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

90s cowboys.
If Jimmy and Jerry play nice they win 4 straight easily and maybe more

This.

[stevew]

2010-2014 Miami Heat should have won all 4 titles.

[dawgfan]

The '78/'79 Sonics were damn-near back-to-back champs, having fallen in 7 games the previous season in the finals. Team chemistry and guys wanting to get paid ate away at that team, but they had enough talent to win another one in the '79/'80 season too.

Likewise, the '91 Washington Huskies could have been repeat champs - a late season loss the year before to UCLA prevented them from ascending to #1 that week but they still demolished Iowa in the Rose Bowl.

Of course you could make a good argument that in both cases, it was the falling just short the prior season that provided the necessary motivation for them to win it all the following seasons.

And of course I don't have to remind anyone how close the Seahawks came to being back-to-back champs.

[bronconick]

The mid-2000s Pistons. One title, one loss in game 7 of the NBA finals and a pile of trips to the conference finals

[henry296]

I'll add the 92-93 Penguins. While they won two in row before that, this was the best team that ended the season on a 17 game winning streak only to lose in Game 7 to the Islanders in OT in the 2nd round.

[NobodyHere]

'07 Colts

[cougarfreak]

Early 70s Reds. They won in 75 & 76, but could have won a few more.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by Kodos

The Bulls, if Jordan hadn't played baseball for a couple seasons.

I also think they coulda won a couple more after their second 3-peat, had the front office not been hell bent on tearing it all down.

[Atocep]

The Fab 5

The late 80s A's.

The Braves

I think this current Seahawks team will join that group if they don't win another title.

Mid-80s Mets

Late 90s Rams


Those are the teams that come to mind.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

I also think they coulda won a couple more after their second 3-peat, had the front office not been hell bent on tearing it all down.

So they could draft Eddy Curry and Tyson Chandler.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

'07 Colts

Yeah, a good example as well. So many great seasons that came up short.

Of course, the Patriots had a lot to with that.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by NoSkillz

Maybe the 92/93 era Toronto Blue Jays would qualify. They were incredibly deep talent-wise, still had a wonderful farm system and were cash rich at the time, selling out Skydome every single game.

The strike in 94 was the beginning of the end for them, with Pat Gillick leaving the team and soon after, most of the top stars on the team.

Phillies qualify for the strike screwing them over as well.

[bhlloy]

Mid 90s Braves are the one that massively stands out to me. You look at that staff and lineup and wonder how it's possible they only won one.

[djsatu]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I'd like to hear some of our Eruos chime in about soccer teams that meet this criteria.

The only team that comes to mind is AC Milan from 1988-1994. The dutch trio of Gullit, Van Basten, and Rijkaard, joined up with Baresi, Maldini, Costacurta, Boban, Desailly etc. Coach Arrigo Sacchi changed the game with his tactics, and they won the Euro Cup 2 years in a row in 89 and 90. Don't know how they didn't win it again for another 2 seasons. They are the only team you can compare in terms of greatness to the modern day Barcelona. Oh and in 1991-93 they didn't lose in 58 league matches which still stands today. As an Inter fan, im extremely jealous of that team

[Critch]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I'd like to hear some of our Eruos chime in about soccer teams that meet this criteria.

Leeds United from the mid-60s to the mid-70s.

With Don Revie as manager they finished in the top 4 every season from 1964-65 until Revie left to become England manager at the end of 1973-74. They were champions twice, but they finished second 5 times. They won the English FA Cup once, but lost in the final three times. They lost a European Cup Final, they lost a European Cup semi final.

For the 10 year run they were always close, but lost out at the last moment more often than not. They were never popular with non-Leeds fans. Not glamorous and fashionable like Man Utd or Liverpool, not Southern enough for the London media, too Northern and workman-like. They also had a reputation for playing dirty thanks to players like Norman "Bites Yer Legs" Hunter and Billy Bremner, a little ginger Scottish guy who flew around the pitch kicking opponents. Their fans had a reputation for ultra-violence too.

I loved them, half the 1974 Scotland World Cup team were Leeds players. They've been Champions once since Revie's years, but then had serious financial problems and have been in the lower divisions for years.

[LastWhiteSoxFanStanding]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

'77 Trail Blazers.

A lot of it, of course, has to do with one specific injury. But that team could have easily won several more titles had Walton's feet held up.

Great pick. In fact, they had a shot at 70 the year Walton got hurt. They were 50-8 when he got hurt and went 8-16 without him.

Originally Posted by Atocep

The Fab 5

.

They don't count. They never won


Interestingly, even though I think those early 90s Braves should have won more championships, I don't put them in the same category as the 85 Bears or 86 Mets because those teams were so young when they first won, it just seemed like winning more was a foregone conclusion. With the Braves, they underachieved for so long and were knocked out of the playoffs so many times that by the time they won, it felt like more of a relief that they were able to even get one. My two cents of course Braves fans probably feel much differently

[General Mike]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

Yep, some of the same as others. My list is really about teams that only got it once, and seemed like they should have gotten a 2nd.

86 Mets - incredible starting pitching and bullpen. This team had Randy Myers, Rick Aguilera, Kevin Mitchell, and HoJo before they became good players. Loaded.

89 A's - of course they made it to the W'S 3 straight but only won it once. Crazy good lineup and very good 1/2 starting pitching (probably why they win the 89 series so easily ). Oh and the Eck.

95 Braves - everybody knows the names here and WS appearances. Nuff said.

99 Rams - most dominant offense I can recall seeing. Almost got the 2nd but really a shame this team didn't have more healthy years together.

85 Bears - agree this dominant defense should have won another title, and probably would have, if not for Buddy leaving.

I kinda disagree about the 89 As teams. I loved them as a kid, but there Starting pitching was not that good. Especially compared to the 95 Braves or the 86 Mets.

As far as the 85 Bears not winning enough, well they had some pretty stiff competition at the time from the Giants, Redskins and 49ers. I would make the argument that a team that hitched it's wagon to QBs named McMahon and Tomczak won the proper amount.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by JeeberD

Nope. The Rockets still would have won. The Rockets were 3-1 against the Bulls the two years before Jordan "retired", and Hakeem was unstoppable those two championship years.

Oh Jeebs!

[LastWhiteSoxFanStanding]

Originally Posted by General Mike

I kinda disagree about the 89 As teams. I loved them as a kid, but there Starting pitching was not that good. Especially compared to the 95 Braves or the 86 Mets.

As far as the 85 Bears not winning enough, well they had some pretty stiff competition at the time from the Giants, Redskins and 49ers. I would make the argument that a team that hitched it's wagon to QBs named McMahon and Tomczak won the proper amount.

Except the Redskins won a Super Bowl with three different QBs and the Giants won with Phil Simms and Jeff Hostetler lol. Not exactly stiff competition--at the qb position. Hard to argue against Montana though.

[ColtCrazy]

Originally Posted by JeeberD

Nope. The Rockets still would have won. The Rockets were 3-1 against the Bulls the two years before Jordan "retired", and Hakeem was unstoppable those two championship years.

Agreed. I always get annoyed at the BS about Jordan being there would have meant 8 straight titles. They got beat in 1995 by Orlando because that Bulls team couldn't handle an inside presence. At that was a young Shaq, who wasn't a prime Hakeem. At any rate, Jordan was back in 95. He scored 55 against Knicks...he was back. I would think a 17 game warmup would be enough to get ready.
Besides, No one...not even Jordan...was beating Olajuwon in those playoffs. His 33.0 ppg, 10.3 rpg, 4.5 apg, 2.8 bpg in 95 playoffs stacks up against the all time great playoff runs.

[General Mike]

Originally Posted by LastWhiteSoxFanStanding

Except the Redskins won a Super Bowl with three different QBs and the Giants won with Phil Simms and Jeff Hostetler lol. Not exactly stiff competition--at the qb position. Hard to argue against Montana though.

Fair enough. I'd disagree about Simms/ Hostettler vs the Bears guys, or the Redskins guys vs the Bears guys, but whatever.

To go down another route, the Bears lost Buddy Ryan right after the Super Bowl win, while the Redskins kept Pettibon and Bugel for most of their run. The Giants kept Belichick and Erhardt and Crennel for Parcells' entire run. Walsh had Seifert and Holmgren a long time in San Fran before he retired.

[ColtCrazy]

For me...

Chelsea of this century. For as much money and talent as Abramovich brought in, you think they'd have a little more hardware than they have. No doubt they did well, but you always got the feel the feeling there should be more.

early-80s 76ers. One title but always the 3rd wheel in the early 80s parthenon of great teams.

70s Raiders. Best record of the 70s...only 1 SB to their credit.

mid-80s Bears

90s Cowboys - think of a team so dominant to turn mediocre so fast

Jim Brown's Browns - Top 10 offense and defense nearly every year he was there but only the '64 title.

I'd like to put the Colts on here, but they really only had a complete team once ('09). '05 and '07 were flawed teams masked by a great offense. '05 defense did give up a lot of yards if not points (2nd in scoring, but 11th in yds). '07 team couldn't run (23rd in ypc). One sounds about right really. Polian basically built a poorer version of his Buffalo powerhouse. Better QB. Worse defense. Worse rushing attack. Much worse special teams

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

I also think they coulda won a couple more after their second 3-peat, had the front office not been hell bent on tearing it all down.

I don't know. Maybe had 1 more in them. Pippen's back was shot and Jordan was on the decline. Rodman was also toast. Pacers had a better team that final title run but Jordan somehow got them to the Finals.

[ColtCrazy]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't know. Maybe had 1 more in them. Pippen's back was shot and Jordan was on the decline. Rodman was also toast. Pacers had a better team that final title run but Jordan somehow got them to the Finals.

Good point. That '98 Pacers team doesn't get the credit they deserve for pushing the Bulls to 7 (only team to do so in the Bulls championship years). '99 Spurs probably would have handled a '99 Bulls team. Duncan/Robinson front court would have given Rodman and company fits.

Bulls teams of 96 and 97 were great. 98 won on grit. 91-93 were good teams but not as good as the second set.

[LastWhiteSoxFanStanding]

Just to add a bit more flavor to the thread.

How about those 1917 Chicago White Sox? One of my favorite teams to watch growing up. They were filled with Hall of Fame players such as Eddie Collins, Red Faber and Ray Schalk. As well as Hall of Fame Caliber players like Eddie Cicotte, Joe Jackson and Happy Felsch.

They won 100 games in 1917 and the World Series. In 1918 they were riddled with injuries and had a losing record. The following year they reached the World Series and won 3 games while many on the team were trying to lose games!!!

In 1920 they won 98 games and finished two games out of first and could have won the league but "On the eve of their final season series, the White Sox were in a virtual tie for first place with the Indians. The Sox would need to win all three of their remaining games and then hope for Cleveland to stumble, as the Indians had more games in hand. Despite the season being on the line, Comiskey suspended the seven White Sox still in the majors (Chick Gandil had not returned to the team in 1920 and was playing semi-pro ball). He said that he had no choice but to suspend them, even though this action likely cost the White Sox any chance of winning that year's American League pennant. The White Sox lost two of the three games in the final series against the St. Louis Browns and finished in second place, two games behind Cleveland."

And of course the players were kicked out of baseball. One of the great what-ifs (to me) is could that team have competed with the 1920s Yankees. As a delusional White Sox fan, I say yes