Patriots now the 2nd greatest franchise in history?

[therealbig3]

Tied with the 49ers and Cowboys with 5 championships, only trail the Steelers, who have 6.

They have more SB appearances than anyone, with the GOAT coach, and the GOAT QB.

Steelers rank ahead for now because they have one more championship, but the Patriots have now eclipsed everyone else's accomplishments, no?

[Cactus Jack]

Tied with the 49ers and Cowboys with 5 championships, only trail the Steelers, who have 6.

They have more SB appearances than anyone, with the GOAT coach, and the GOAT QB.

Steelers rank ahead for now because they have one more championship, but the Patriots have now eclipsed everyone else's accomplishments, no?

I'd argue otherwise. They were bad for a long stretch. First title wasn't til 2002. A lot of bad football before the mid 90's. I think you have to rank based on consistency through the years. Who's been consistently good? There have only been a few. The Steelers have been pretty consistent since the 70's. The Packers have the most championships of anyone. The Bears, Giants follow.

Packers
Steelers

[therealbig3]

Tied with the 49ers and Cowboys with 5 championships, only trail the Steelers, who have 6.

They have more SB appearances than anyone, with the GOAT coach, and the GOAT QB.

Steelers rank ahead for now because they have one more championship, but the Patriots have now eclipsed everyone else's accomplishments, no?

I'd argue otherwise. They were bad for a long stretch. First title wasn't til 2002. A lot of bad football before the mid 90's. I think you have to rank based on consistency through the years. Who's been consistently good? There have only been a few.

But they still accomplished more, despite not being good earlier in their history. That's what matters at the end of the day, I would think.

[therealbig3]

And if you look at the teams with comparable success, the Steelers, 49ers, Cowboys, and Giants have ALL had their fair share of suckitude over the years.

[Cactus Jack]

Tied with the 49ers and Cowboys with 5 championships, only trail the Steelers, who have 6.

They have more SB appearances than anyone, with the GOAT coach, and the GOAT QB.

Steelers rank ahead for now because they have one more championship, but the Patriots have now eclipsed everyone else's accomplishments, no?

I'd argue otherwise. They were bad for a long stretch. First title wasn't til 2002. A lot of bad football before the mid 90's. I think you have to rank based on consistency through the years. Who's been consistently good? There have only been a few.

But they still accomplished more, despite not being good earlier in their history. That's what matters at the end of the day, I would think.

History is the key word here. Best team of the last 15 years? Absolutely. But, the NFL dates back to the 1920's/30's.

[therealbig3]

I'd argue otherwise. They were bad for a long stretch. First title wasn't til 2002. A lot of bad football before the mid 90's. I think you have to rank based on consistency through the years. Who's been consistently good? There have only been a few.

But they still accomplished more, despite not being good earlier in their history. That's what matters at the end of the day, I would think.

History is the key word here. Best team of the last 15 years? Absolutely. But, the NFL dates back to the 1920's/30's.

So you would take more consistency over more SBs?

Can't say I agree with that logic.

[Cactus Jack]

But they still accomplished more, despite not being good earlier in their history. That's what matters at the end of the day, I would think.

History is the key word here. Best team of the last 15 years? Absolutely. But, the NFL dates back to the 1920's/30's.

So you would take more consistency over more SBs?

GreenBay has won 4 super bowls but also 13 total championships. NE just the 5. Whats more impressive?

[therealbig3]

And the Patriots have the 5th best RS win-loss record of all time, and the 2nd best PS win-loss record of all time. So clearly, their down years didn't affect them too much.

[Cactus Jack]

But they still accomplished more, despite not being good earlier in their history. That's what matters at the end of the day, I would think.

History is the key word here. Best team of the last 15 years? Absolutely. But, the NFL dates back to the 1920's/30's.

So you would take more consistency over more SBs?

Can't say I agree with that logic.

If your gonna go just based on titles then...

1. Packers= 13
2. Bears= 9
3. Giants= 8
4. Steelers= 6

[therealbig3]

History is the key word here. Best team of the last 15 years? Absolutely. But, the NFL dates back to the 1920's/30's.

So you would take more consistency over more SBs?

GreenBay has won 4 super bowls but also 13 total championships. NE just the 5. Whats more impressive?

Patriots are more impressive. Because those pre-SB years don't matter all that much. A lot of them were given out simply for having the best RS record, and even when they had a playoff system, the conferences were separate, like the ABA and NBA...Patriots would have a lot more championships too using pre-SB criteria.

[therealbig3]

The pre-SB era is basically a completely different league, like the George Mikan days in basketball. Really can't include that when comparing franchises tbh.

[Cactus Jack]

So you would take more consistency over more SBs?

GreenBay has won 4 super bowls but also 13 total championships. NE just the 5. Whats more impressive?

Patriots are more impressive. Because those pre-SB years don't matter all that much. A lot of them were given out simply for having the best RS record, and even when they had a playoff system, the conferences were separate, like the ABA and NBA...Patriots would have a lot more championships too using pre-SB criteria.

[bluejerseyjinx]

Ernie's back, lol.

[Cactus Jack]

The pre-SB era is basically a completely different league, like the George Mikan days in basketball. Really can't include that when comparing franchises tbh.

I'm assuming your a Boston/Celtics fan as well. I guess we can just throw out the Celtics titles back in the day (50's,60's) also. Since basketball before the mid- to late 70's was a completely different game than today's lol. Nice logic.

[Cactus Jack]

Ernie's back, lol.

[therealbig3]

GreenBay has won 4 super bowls but also 13 total championships. NE just the 5. Whats more impressive?

Patriots are more impressive. Because those pre-SB years don't matter all that much. A lot of them were given out simply for having the best RS record, and even when they had a playoff system, the conferences were separate, like the ABA and NBA...Patriots would have a lot more championships too using pre-SB criteria.

Come on bro, no need to react like that. Explain how I'm being unreasonable? Up until 1933, the champion was based on RS record. I don't see how that's valid to include anything pre-1933 at all when discussing franchise championships. Best RS record doesn't prove a thing and doesn't warrant a team to be considered a "champion".

And until the SB era (1966-present), you had two separate leagues that had their own playoffs and their own championships. Again, don't see how that's valid to include...that's like adding conference championships to a team's total championships. The SB era is when there was finally an ultimate championship game that was played by the winners of their respective league (now known as the AFC and NFC). That's really the only time it becomes valid to count championships, because there actually was a common one that everyone played for.

[therealbig3]

The pre-SB era is basically a completely different league, like the George Mikan days in basketball. Really can't include that when comparing franchises tbh.

I'm assuming your a Boston/Celtics fan as well. I guess we can just throw out the Celtics titles back in the day (50's,60's) also. Since basketball before the mid- to late 70's was a completely different game than today's lol. Nice logic.

Nets fan actually.

And yeah, I don't mind people questioning those early Celtics championships either.

But basketball in the late 50s and 60s hasn't changed nearly as much as it did before that, when they widened the lane.

But yeah, if someone wants to argue that having a completely separate league with half of the professional talent available at the time, with no championship game deciding the overall champion between the two leagues, is a pretty big deal and thus it isn't fair to really consider those pre-merger years all that much, I think that's a really fair argument.

[Cactus Jack]

Come on bro, no need to react like that. Explain how I'm being unreasonable? Up until 1933, the champion was based on RS record. I don't see how that's valid to include anything pre-1933 at all when discussing franchise championships. Best RS record doesn't prove a thing and doesn't warrant a team to be considered a "champion".

Back then it did. pretty simple. Plus, that's not uncommon in other sports. Soccer in many leagues across Europe use this very philosophy. America really is the only country that says you must have a playoff system to define a champion. College football until just recently??

And until the SB era (1966-present), you had two separate leagues that had their own playoffs and their own championships. Again, don't see how that's valid to include...that's like adding conference championships to a team's total championships. The SB era is when there was finally an ultimate championship game that was played by the winners of their respective league (now known as the AFC and NFC). That's really the only time it becomes valid to count championships, because there actually was a common one that everyone played for.

This is true. But, you can't just ignore those prior years. You asked about the history of the NFL. I'm identifying all of it. Not some self-imposed era. You could of phrased it a different way (SB era only). But, it wasn't emphasized.

[bluejerseyjinx]

I come in here to get away from what I have to hear all day long, and its the same damn thing. Time to start talking about free agency or the draft, or take a vacation till the draft. Refuse to chat about the Patsie's. Over it and done with it. Ready to go back talking about the other 31 teams, except the Egals and Redskins of course.

[therealbig3]

Come on bro, no need to react like that. Explain how I'm being unreasonable? Up until 1933, the champion was based on RS record. I don't see how that's valid to include anything pre-1933 at all when discussing franchise championships. Best RS record doesn't prove a thing and doesn't warrant a team to be considered a "champion".

Back then it did. pretty simple. Plus, that's not uncommon in other sports. Soccer in many leagues across Europe use this very philosophy. America really is the only country that says you must have a playoff system to define a champion.

And until the SB era (1966-present), you had two separate leagues that had their own playoffs and their own championships. Again, don't see how that's valid to include...that's like adding conference championships to a team's total championships. The SB era is when there was finally an ultimate championship game that was played by the winners of their respective league (now known as the AFC and NFC). That's really the only time it becomes valid to count championships, because there actually was a common one that everyone played for.

This is true. But, you can't just ignore those prior years. You asked about the history of the NFL. I'm identifying all of it. Not some self-imposed era. You could of phrased it a different way (SB era only). But, it wasn't emphasized.

Good post.

Points taken.