Are the 2002 Buccaneers or 2009 Saints the "Miracle Mets of the NFL"?

Estil

Until the Saints magical run of this year, I had always figured that the 2002 Tampa Bay Buccaneers were the "Miracle Mets" of the NFL. That is, a team that seemingly came out of nowhere and won the Super Bowl after such a very long time as among the laughingstocks of the NFL (just like how the Mets won the World Series in 1969 after finishing last or next-to-last every year of their existence). However, the Bucs DID make the playoffs four out of the previous five years (1997, 1999-01; won division in 1999) before winning it all in 2002 so they didn't exactly "come out of nowhere" to win that championship.

The Saints meanwhile, started in 1967 and had to wait twenty years before they made the playoffs at all. It took three playoff wins to win the 2009 Super Bowl; prior to that they only managed two playoff wins in their entire franchise history. They did win the division in 2006 however.

So in both cases, it's not quite accurate to say that either the 2002 Bucs or 2009 Saints "came out of nowhere" to win the championship the way the 1969 Mets did (or the 2008 AL Champ Rays, who until that year never had a winning season). But still, I'd say based on the fact that the Saints had to wait far longer than the Bucs and had fewer playoff appearances/wins, I'd say the 2009 Saints have indeed taken the "Miracle Mets" title away from the 2002 Bucs. Oh, and it just so happened to have occurred on the 40th anniversary of the Miracle Mets too!

To quote Bill O'Reilly, where am I wrong?

Blackborder

I think the 1969 Jets are the 1969 "Mets" of the NFL.


My father always said 1969 was an incredible year - Jets-Mets-Moon

Walt

you have to mix the 8-8 Ravens in there, winning the super bowl the next year, they went November, December and January without a loss. 14th ranked offense
in 1999, 14th ranked offense in 2000....the only difference....yes defense.

Goot

1999 St Louis Rams.

They hadn't had a winning season since 1989 when they were the L.A. Rams, before going 13-3 and winning the SB.

stown

It will be the 2010 Houston Astros, Rockets, and Texans!

Estil

<< <i>I think the 1969 Jets are the 1969 "Mets" of the NFL.


My father always said 1969 was an incredible year - Jets-Mets-Moon >>



Actually, that's 1968 Jets (they won the Super Bowl in January 1969 but it's based off the 1968 season). And they did not make the playoffs (and in fact came close to bankruptcy in 1962) until their Super Bowl championship season, so I suppose you could make a case. However, the main reason the Colts were such 18 point favorites was that despite the merger, the AFL in general was considered sort of a "minor league" compared to the NFL. Though the Jets (and the next year the Chefs SB win) sure blew that out of the water.

2ndCharter

Sorry, but I don't think either of them come close to the '69 Mets - remember, that was back in the "reserve clause" days when you couldn't just write a check and buy players to plug holes in your lineup. You had to build through the draft, wait for the players to mature in the minor leagues, maybe pick up a castoff from another team, and be a shrewd trader.

In the modern era, with free agency and draft picks that can start right away (especially in football and basketball), it's a lot easier to turn a team around.

PowderedH2O

A lot of people think of the Saints as losers because of the horrible first 20 years of the franchise. Did you know that the team actually had a winning record for the decade of the 2000's? Really only one bad season, 2005 (Katrina displacement). The records for the decade (regular season) are 10-6, 7-9, 9-7, 8-8, 8-8, 3-13, 10-6, 7-9, 8-8, 13-3 for a total record of 83-77. What I am trying to get to here is that the Saints have been 'ok' for the decade, and the same for the 80's and 90's. Basically, they have been a mediocre team with occasional bright spots. The 1969 Mets were coming off of records of 40-120, 51-111, 53-109, 66-95, 61-101, 73-89. That's not mediocre. That's HORRIBLE!!! If you were a Saints fan and watched all of the games last year, this year was not that big of a shock, at least not winning the division and making the playoffs. The Saints lost a game in Denver where they missed the game winning field goal as time expired. They lost a Monday night game vs the Vikings in which they dominated but had some key turnovers (basically the opposite of the NFC Championship) and the Vikings scored three non-offensive touchdowns. They later lost to Tampa in a game in which they nearly doubled Tampa's yardage. And the same thing against the Bears. And against the Panthers. And yet they went 8-8. So, with a little luck and better special teams play and fewer turnovers, this team was ready to step up. Of course, I had no idea they could run the table. The Mets in 1968 were second to last in runs scored in the NL. Who could have predicted that the Mets would finish 9th in runs scored again, and yet make a 27 game improvement with essentially the same guys? The Mets may never be duplicated.